Horton

Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2014-09-29T22:16:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> Wrong. You can't realistically implement the guarantees of UPSERT
> without a corresponding UNIQUE index.

You definitely can do it; the question is what you consider
reasonable in terms of development effort, performance, and
concurrency.  I think the problem can be solved with non-scary
values of pretty much any two of those.  I guess my assumption is
that we won't handle the general case until someone wants to put
the substantial development effort into making the other two
acceptable.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

  2. Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.