| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-08-01 01:52:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-c+88XgAEPDtyziLed3uBbVWhyUseXrUt3YosticpEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Since nowhere has the user asked to ensure unique(b) across partitions by
> defining the same on parent, this seems just fine. But one question to
> ask may be whether that will *always* be the case? That is, will we take
> ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING without the conflict target specification to mean
> checking for conflicts on the individual leaf partition level, even in the
> future when we may have global constraints?
No. We'll take it to mean that there is no conflict with any unique
constraint we're able to declare. Currently, that means a
partition-local unique constraint because that's all there is. It
will include any new things added in the future.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-01 02:00:53 | Re: Parallel Hash take II |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-01 01:47:57 | Re: Constraint exclusion for partitioned tables |