Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140929222037.GK2084@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-29 15:16:49 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Wrong. You can't realistically implement the guarantees of UPSERT > > without a corresponding UNIQUE index. > > You definitely can do it; the question is what you consider > reasonable in terms of development effort, performance, and > concurrency. Right. You can exclusively lock the table and such. The point is just that nobody wants that. I.e. people want to be warned about it. > I think the problem can be solved with non-scary values of pretty much > any two of those. I guess my assumption is that we won't handle the > general case until someone wants to put the substantial development > effort into making the other two acceptable. Which would be a major loss because MERGE is rather useful outside of atomic upsert. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: