| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(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 17:31:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4215.1432143117@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-05-20 18:09:05 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>> This implies that an exclusion constraint is valid in the statement,
>>>> which contradicts the docs. Which one is correct?
>>> ON CONFLICT can be used for ... DO NOTHING as well.
>> Yes, but still confusing when not using DO NOTHING.
> I'm not sure I can follow. INSERT INTO account VALUES(...) ON CONFLICT
> (email) DO NOTHING; seems to make sense to me?
Sure, but on what basis does it decide that there's a conflict?
If you can't use an exclusion constraint to support the command,
then the error message shouldn't be worded like that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-20 17:37:06 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-20 17:11:16 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-05-20 17:35:26 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-20 17:11:16 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |