| 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: | 2017-02-08 18:57:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkqyLTcoktCdA66t-oC0niHEferNsZqRbd2kZuPp1pW7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not following. If the executor needs to check too, that's fine,
> but why is it okay for the planner not to check? Assume that for some
> weird reason the user has both indimmediate and !indimmediate indexes
> on the same column set. If the planner chooses the wrong one, don't
> bad things happen?
No, because the planner isn't limited to picking just one. It is
generally very likely that only one will be chosen, but edge cases
like this are considered. infer_arbiter_indexes() returns a list of
Oids of indexes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | cinbau | 2017-02-08 19:56:48 | BUG #14536: Centos 7 gdal-libs Dependency Problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-08 18:51:21 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |