Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: 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: 2017-02-17 05:50:45
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=5Sd22FxLtj_Hgd5pWaGJj7Nyh2SUXxiQcnqQ+3C2cRQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error out
> with the patch. As discussed here, DO UPDATE cannot be supported at the
> moment.

Maybe you should just let infer_arbiter_indexes() fail, rather than
enforcing this directly. IIRC, that's what happens with
inheritance-based partitioning.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-02-17 05:52:14 Instability in select_parallel regression test
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-02-17 05:48:01 Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning