| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-05-06 20:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20150506202224.GC12506@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-06 13:05:16 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> In this variant, you explicitly specify the constraint by name.
> >
> > I do think it's a bit sad to not be able to specify unique indexes that
> > aren't constraints. So I'd like to have a corresponding ON INDEX - which
> > would be trivial.
>
> Then what's the point of having ON CONSTRAINT?
That it supports exclusion constraints?
> I would care about the fact that you can't name a unique index with no
> constraint if there wasn't already a way of doing that with inference
> (I'm thinking in particular of partial indexes here, which never have
> constraints). But there is. So what's the problem?
Personally I think a complex expression index is something many people
will not want to specify every time. And since partial/expression
indexes can't even have constraints...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-05-06 20:28:43 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-06 20:19:19 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |