| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-05-01 14:22:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20150501142255.GE30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On the other hand it's way more convenient to specify a single
> constraint name than several columns and a predicate. I'm pretty sure
> there's situations where I a) rather live with a smaller chance of error
> during a replacement of the constraint b) if we get concurrently
> replaceable constraints the naming should be doable too.
>
> I don't see your argument strong enough to argue against allowing this
> *as an alternative*.
Agreed.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-01 14:24:03 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-01 14:21:27 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |