Horton

Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
Date: 2017-08-01T01:52:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Since nowhere has the user asked to ensure unique(b) across partitions by
> defining the same on parent, this seems just fine.  But one question to
> ask may be whether that will *always* be the case?  That is, will we take
> ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING without the conflict target specification to mean
> checking for conflicts on the individual leaf partition level, even in the
> future when we may have global constraints?

No.  We'll take it to mean that there is no conflict with any unique
constraint we're able to declare.  Currently, that means a
partition-local unique constraint because that's all there is.  It
will include any new things added in the future.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Revert "Allow ON CONFLICT .. DO NOTHING on a partitioned table."

  2. Allow ON CONFLICT .. DO NOTHING on a partitioned table.