From: | Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
Date: | 2017-02-07 23:46:49 |
Message-ID: | CAPsQ5r8AYF0uyUxqRuV9XRDFEDMfSHZAy8xQf2Tj1rvz7uVoVQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Maybe it was not the best use of the word "crashes". It gives me the error
I showed you.
I don't really understand how PostgreSQL handles indexes, but would it be
possible that the INDEX is being used/updated at that moment and so the
INSERT doesn't know it exists? Can concurrency also be a problem?
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> escreveu no dia terça, 7/02/2017 às 23:36:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Tiago Babo <tiago(dot)babo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The only difference (so it seems), is that when it crashes, the person
> was created in the seconds before creating the account. When it previously
> exists in the persons table, it never gives the error.
>
> It crashes?
>
> Anyway, it's very hard to see how that could be, since the error in
> question is thrown from within the planner. I don't recall the exact
> details of how inference will do offhand, but I am suspicious of the
> cast that appears in the partial index predicate.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-07 23:49:47 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-02-07 23:36:30 | Re: BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |