| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT | 
| Date: | 2017-02-07 23:50:31 | 
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkZO4u1mMzDW70yssq6OK7WdpCaO7f9sNmtosctWNS9Ug@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs | 
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't really understand how PostgreSQL handles indexes, but would it be
> possible that the INDEX is being used/updated at that moment and so the
> INSERT doesn't know it exists? Can concurrency also be a problem?
Anything is possible, I suppose, but that seems very unlikely to be a
factor here. Any problem like this occurs in codepaths that only
consider metadata -- the definition of indexes themselves, underlying
types, and so on. This presumably never changes here; you aren't
creating and dropping indexes on the table in question around the time
you see problems.
-- 
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-07 23:57:20 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-07 23:49:47 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |