Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work
Date: 2017-03-16 19:42:04
Message-ID: 20920c13-784f-05b5-6f86-dac31dc1d970@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On 03/16/2017 09:34 PM, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> I don't see anything in the current docs
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/sql-insert.html saying that I
> cannot use the unique index' name here. So it definitely looks like a bug.

This is by design. The docs on conflict_target says:

"Specifies which conflicts ON CONFLICT takes the alternative action on
by choosing arbiter indexes. Either performs unique index inference, or
names a *constraint* explicitly." (emphasis mine)

As it says, you can name a constraint explicitly. A unique index is not
a constraint.

We debated this for a long time when the ON CONFLICT feature was being
developed. In the end, we settled on this behavior, on the grounds that
a constraint is a logical concept, while an index is a physical
implementation detail. Note that the SQL standard also doesn't say
anything about indexes, but constraints are in the standard.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-03-16 19:44:23 Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-03-16 19:40:50 Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-03-16 19:44:23 Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-03-16 19:40:50 Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work