| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE with _any_ constraint |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 20:42:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR3RaKJk6Ojb7SjrGSACi3Yy2MQDATyEH9e7R-9THU_rQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> As the patch author I hope and expect that you will listen to this and
>> consider how you will resolve these problems, just as any of us has done
>> when they are the patch author, even after commit. I would like to see this
>> happen now before we get hit with usage questions similar to OP's. If both
>> requests cannot happen now, if we can at least agree a path for future
>> enhancement we can refer people to what will happen in later releases when
>> they ask.
>
> That's reasonable. I only ask that you describe a plausible use case.
> Let's start with that. Try and convince me.
Also, by not taking a firm position one way or the other on the first
point, the question of whether or not it is appropriate to mandate an
inference specification for the DO UPDATE variant, I am not simply
being indifferent. Rather, I don't know one way or the other. I
reserve judgement.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-21 20:49:27 | Re: Fix misaligned access of ItemPointerData on ARM |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-05-21 20:38:08 | Re: Fix misaligned access of ItemPointerData on ARM |