Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT
Date: 2017-03-28 00:56:26
Message-ID: 2a750dc8-511c-41f9-33a9-6526a57ab81f@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017/03/27 23:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>>> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in
>>>>> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on
>>>>> partitioned tables at all.
>>>>
>>>> This patch no longer applies.
>>>
>>> Rebased patch is attached.
>>
>> Oops, really attached this time,
>
> Committed with a bit of wordsmithing of the documentation.

Thanks.

Regards,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-03-28 00:57:09 Re: Bug in get_partition_for_tuple
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2017-03-28 00:54:47 Re: pgsql: Clean up Perl code according to perlcritic