| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-05-05 16:36:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20150505163636.GJ9855@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-04 14:16:42 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> > The ability to specify a constraint by name hasn't been implemented, but
> > that would read quite naturally as:
> >
> > INSERT INTO mytable ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT my_constraint UPDATE ...
>
> For the record, I have made this change on Github
Theoretically this changes the pictures for FDWs, right? Right now
there's
+ <para>
+ <command>INSERT</> with an <literal>ON CONFLICT</> clause is not
+ supported with a unique index inference specification, since a
+ conflict arbitrating unique index cannot meaningfully be inferred
+ on a foreign table (this implies that <literal>ON CONFLICT DO
+ UPDATE</> is never supported, since the specification is
+ mandatory there).
+ </para>
but theoretically the constraint name could be meaningful on the other
side...
I don't think this is anyting for 9.5, but it might be interesting for
later.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-05 16:40:59 | Fixing busted citext function declarations |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-05-05 15:52:07 | INSERT ... ON CONFLICT error messages |