Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-12-23T13:46:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> If you're dead set on having an escape hatch, maybe we should just get
> over it and add a way of specifying a unique index by name. As I said,
> these under-served use cases are either exceedingly rare or entirely
> theoretical.

I'm decidedly unenthusiastic about that.  People don't expect CREATE
INDEX CONCURRENTLY + DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY to break their DML.  I
think the solution in this case would be a gateway to problems larger
than the one we're trying to solve.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: 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.