| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
| Date: | 2017-02-07 23:49:47 |
| Message-ID: | 30935.1486511387@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> Anyway, it's very hard to see how that could be, since the error in
> question is thrown from within the planner.
Yeah, there really shouldn't be any data dependency there.
> I don't recall the exact
> details of how inference will do offhand, but I am suspicious of the
> cast that appears in the partial index predicate.
That's expected given that the column is declared varchar.
The whole thing is pretty strange. I could believe the test not
finding an index whose state is changing (ie, it's in process of
being built by CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY), but as long as the
pg_index entry is stable it seems like it should either work or not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-07 23:50:31 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
| Previous Message | Tiago Babo | 2017-02-07 23:46:49 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |