RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump

From: "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump
Date: 2018-06-15 05:06:25
Message-ID: 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A567B39E4@G01JPEXMBKW04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Surafel Temesgen [mailto:surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com]
>thank you for the review
>
> Do you have any plan to support on-conlict-do-update? Supporting this seems
>to me complicated and take much time so I don't mind not implementing this.
>
>
>i agree its complicated and i don't have a plan to implementing it.

Sure.

>thank you for pointing me that i add basic test and it seems to me the rest of the test
>is covered by column_inserts test

Thank you for updating.
Just one comment for the code.

+ if (dopt.do_nothing && !(dopt.dump_inserts || dopt.column_inserts))
I think you can remove dopt.column_inserts here because at this point dopt.dump_inserts has
already turned true if --column-inserts is specified.

But I'm just inclined to think that use case of this feature is vague.
Could you specify more concrete use case that is practical for many users?
(It would lead to more attention to this patch.)
For example, is it useful to backup just before making a big change to DB like delete tables?

===
Takeshi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-06-15 05:49:21 Re: Problem while updating a foreign table pointing to a partitioned table on foreign server
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-06-15 04:36:56 Re: WAL prefetch