| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT error messages |
| Date: | 2015-05-07 21:22:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSEB0gjDau9xOPSdTM3chFhTRj8VN5hRrb=WrO2Uf+5Cg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> The only downside I see is that it might not work in preventing the
> statement from proceeding. In other words, you might have a partial
> unique index style inference clause (i.e. with a predicate) that
> infers a non-partial index, because everything else matches, and no
> predicate (on the index) satisfies the inference predicate. So it
> comes down to the actual definition of indexes, as opposed to the
> statement that inferred those indexes, which isn't quite the same
> thing.
Hmm. I think it might be inconsistent with our position on NULL values
with this feature - which is that insertion will always proceed - to
deny insertion from proceeding here. On reflection, it seems like a
bit of a POLA violation. So I'm going to remove the error.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-07 21:45:12 | Modify pg_stat_get_activity to build a tuplestore |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-07 21:14:57 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT error messages |