Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>
Cc: Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT
Date: 2017-02-08 23:57:16
Message-ID: 1502.1486598236@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

David Gould <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> You should turn on log_statements and look to see what's actually being
>> sent to the server.

> Last time I looked, the JDBC driver always uses prepared statements.

Yeah, but does JDBC actually pull literal constants out of the query
string and send them as separate parameter values? That seems like a
pretty dumb idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Gould 2017-02-09 02:00:40 Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT
Previous Message David Gould 2017-02-08 23:33:28 Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT