Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
Date
Msg-id 525D98BF.6020202@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/15/2013 12:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> However, it does seem like the new syntax could be extended with and
>> optional "USING unqiue_index_name" in the future (9.5), no?
> 
> There is no reason why we couldn't do that and just consider that one
> unique index. Whether we should is another question - 

What's the "shouldn't" argument, if any?

> I certainly
> think that mandating it would be very bad.

Agreed.  If there is a PK, we should allow the user to use it implicitly.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
Next
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: background workers, round three