Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml

Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml

From
Etsuro Fujita
Date:
The following is a remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml.

     <command>INSERT</> with an <literal>ON CONFLICT</> clause does not
     support specifying the conflict target, as remote constraints are not
     locally known. This in turn implies that <literal>ON CONFLICT DO
     UPDATE</> is not supported, since the specification is mandatory there.

ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is
somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be
defined locally in 9.5.  How about "unique constraints or exclusion
constraints on remote tables are not locally known"?  Attached is a
patch for that.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Attachment

Re: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml

From
Peter Geoghegan
Date:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is
> somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be
> defined locally in 9.5.  How about "unique constraints or exclusion
> constraints on remote tables are not locally known"?  Attached is a
> patch for that.

Makes sense to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is
>> somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be
>> defined locally in 9.5.  How about "unique constraints or exclusion
>> constraints on remote tables are not locally known"?  Attached is a
>> patch for that.
>
> Makes sense to me.

Me, too.  Committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml

From
Etsuro Fujita
Date:
On 2015/10/03 5:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is
>>> somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be
>>> defined locally in 9.5.  How about "unique constraints or exclusion
>>> constraints on remote tables are not locally known"?  Attached is a
>>> patch for that.

>> Makes sense to me.

> Me, too.  Committed.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita