| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-09-30 22:02:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSR+1VM47xWZQ2tDe4vVO4B5Q0jpPCebo-h9KRBVrdCJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it'd be acceptable. Alternatively we'll just accept that you can
> get uniqueness violations under concurrency. I many cases that'll be
> fine.
I think living with unique violations is the right thing with MERGE, fwiw.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-30 22:03:07 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-30 22:01:42 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |