Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.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: 2014-09-29T22:20:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2014-09-29 15:16:49 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > 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. Right. You can exclusively lock the table and such. The point is just that nobody wants that. I.e. people want to be warned about it. > 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. Which would be a major loss because MERGE is rather useful outside of atomic upsert. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Commits
-
Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.
- 37484ad2aace 9.4.0 cited
-
Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.
- 0ef0b3020402 9.1.0 cited