| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-12-23 13:46:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-bjycEqW6J2HEOZNRMmZ5XuMN0mrUZAVP8QDW0Nk6rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> If you're dead set on having an escape hatch, maybe we should just get
> over it and add a way of specifying a unique index by name. As I said,
> these under-served use cases are either exceedingly rare or entirely
> theoretical.
I'm decidedly unenthusiastic about that. People don't expect CREATE
INDEX CONCURRENTLY + DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY to break their DML. I
think the solution in this case would be a gateway to problems larger
than the one we're trying to solve.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-23 13:48:40 | Re: Final Patch for GROUPING SETS |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-23 13:44:17 | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |