Thank you. Now it's clear that documentation on web-site is outdated
> On 9 Oct 2018, at 23:12, Vincent Poon <vincent.poon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We do need to update the docs after PHOENIX-3925, which changed the behavior
> from 'recommended' to 'mandatory'.
> I'll update the docs now.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:08 PM Ankit Singhal <ankitsingha...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ankitsingha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> We do not allow atomic upsert and throw the corresponding exception in the
> cases documented under the limitations section of
> http://phoenix.apache.org/atomic_upsert.html
> <http://phoenix.apache.org/atomic_upsert.html>. Probably a documentation
> needs a little touch to convey this clearly.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:05 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org
> <mailto:els...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what is unclear about the documentation? This
> exception and the related documentation read as being in support of each
> other to me.
>
> On 10/9/18 5:39 AM, Batyrshin Alexander wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > Documentations (http://phoenix.apache.org/atomic_upsert.html
> > <http://phoenix.apache.org/atomic_upsert.html>) say:
> >
> > "Although global indexes on columns being atomically updated are supported,
> > it’s not recommended as a potentially a separate RPC across the wire would
> > be made while the row is under lock to maintain the secondary index."
> >
> > But in practice we get:
> > CANNOT_USE_ON_DUP_KEY_WITH_GLOBAL_IDX(1224, "42Z24", "The ON DUPLICATE KEY
> > clause may not be used when a table has a global index." )
> >
> > Is this bug or documentation is outdated?
> >
