Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT
Date
Msg-id 2a750dc8-511c-41f9-33a9-6526a57ab81f@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT  ("Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>)
List 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@lab.ntt.co.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





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in get_partition_for_tuple