Re: [BUGS] ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170316194908.5ffknrbpe6ijsze2@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2017-03-16 12:44:23 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: > > We debated this for a long time when the ON CONFLICT feature was being > > developed. In the end, we settled on this behavior, on the grounds that a > > constraint is a logical concept, while an index is a physical implementation > > detail. Note that the SQL standard also doesn't say anything about indexes, > > but constraints are in the standard. > > Right. Besides, you really are only supposed to use the ON CONSTRAINT > syntax when inference won't work, as an escape hatch. This doesn't > look like an example of where inference won't work. That's limited to > ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING with exclusion constraints, which is fairly > limited. FWIW, I never was completely on board with this design goal, and I think we should have (and still should) support using indexes directly. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: