Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE

Aside from Tom Lane's comments, it seems to me you are reinventing the
wheel by generating random values for keys. Why not just use UUID
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/datatype-uuid.html
or serial
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/datatype-numeric.html#DATATYPE-SERIAL?

Wouldn't that simplify things by insuring uniqueness?

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 07/19/2015 08:04 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> W dniu 19.07.2015 o 16:33, Adrian Klaver pisze:
>>
>>> On 07/19/2015 06:47 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 19.07.2015 o 14:10, Geoff Winkless pisze:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19 July 2015 at 11:30, Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)ztk-rp(dot)eu
>>>>>
>>>> [---------------]
>>
>>> Although "a random" can duplicate its previous values, "my random(s)"
>>>> (which are created for this application purpose) cannot be duplicated
>>>> when it's stored in the database as "live active data". I understand,
>>>> that UNIQUE constraint is precisely the RDBMS tool to guarantee that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> From my perspective the issue is, you are using a 'unique' key generator
>>> that you know is not creating unique keys and then asking the database
>>> to make it right. Sort of like making a square peg fit a round hole by
>>> shaving the corners. It is possible but has sort of a messy feel to it.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm, yes.
>>
>> Yet, I don't feel guilty as much, since that is quite similar to a
>> unique key on database "username", while the "generator" (human mind)
>> does not guarantee that. The DB just makes sure it does.
>>
>
> I think the argument to be made here is you have no control over what
> people choose as a username, you do have control over what your key
> generator outputs.
>
>
>> [--------------]
>>
>>>
>>> So an UPSERT is just one feature of ON CONFLICT. The other being DO
>>> NOTHING. Therefore I could see an argument made for adding other ON
>>> CONFLICT clauses. How difficult/plausible that would be is above my
>>> level of expertise.
>>>
>>>
>> Mine too. But I'd say that the above wording exactly makes the point I
>> was trying to make. Thank you.
>>
>> -R
>>
>>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.