Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZTNTNyfh2V_osGYJ1U_kppV036LP5Ls9Y+6fJ42gMbSow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree. I think we should just live with the fact that not
> every conceivable use case will be covered, at least initially.

To be clear: I still think I should go and make the changes that will
make the feature play nice with all shipped non-default B-Tree
operator classes, and will make it work with partial unique indexes
[1]. That isn't difficult or controversial, AFAICT, and gets us very
close to satisfying every conceivable use case.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQdv7GDLwPRv7=rE-gG1QjLOOL3vCmAriCBcTYk8GwqKw@mail.gmail.com
-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs