| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Date: | 2015-05-20 18:26:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20150520182617.GA10047@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-20 11:24:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > But you *can* use a exclusion constraint for DO NOTHING. Just not (yet)
> > for DO UPDATE.
>
> FWIW, I don't think exclusion constraint DO UPDATE support is ever
> going to be useful.
Why?
Even if maybe not directly under the guise of exclusion constraints
themselves, but I do think it's an interesting way to more easily allow
to implement unique constraints on !amcanunique type indexes. Or, more
interestingly, for unique keys spanning partitions.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-20 19:07:56 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-20 18:24:06 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-05-20 18:29:16 | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-20 18:24:06 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |