Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT
Date: 2017-03-31 22:26:22
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=3LbiK+XaDja8p5nohuyjBVMR-t4UhSFEsx4fMKA94RQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And, indeed, you could get an unique constraint or exclusion error
> because of an index on the child even though it's not global to the
> partitioning hierarchy. So maybe we can support this after all, but
> having messed it up once, I'm inclined to think we should postpone
> this to v11, think it over some more, a

Fine by me.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-31 22:36:04 Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
Previous Message Ashutosh Sharma 2017-03-31 22:09:22 Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_kill_items/MarkBufferDirtyHint