| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:26:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=J+AtQg5xEm3y6GUO=KfzqsfKy89Vzn0-NayjkF_baVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hm. I looked at infer_arbiter_indexes, which is the place where this
> particular error is thrown, and realized that my previous assertion
> was wrong: it *does* try to prove applicability of partial indexes
> based on the ON CONFLICT WHERE clause.
I must have misunderstood. ON CONFLICT accepts a WHERE clause as part
of the inference specification itself entirely because that is
sometimes useful.
> So actually it should be
> deciding that uniq_person_accounts is a usable unique index --- at
> least, if you always have "WHERE type = 'PersonAccount'" in the
> ON CONFLICT clause. Maybe you're sometimes leaving that out?
That's the simplest answer. Tiago?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tiago Babo | 2017-02-07 22:15:20 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-07 20:44:07 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |