Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching theON CONFLICT
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching theON CONFLICT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-Wz=ui3Asb8xtY40L1jF4cxgqmnoSbmpoJT74TWSUYMz69g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching theON CONFLICT (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching theON CONFLICT
Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > It won't work with deferrable constraints (even when immediate > enforcement is in effect, so obscure reasons). Enforcement occurs in > the executor -- see ExecCheckIndexConstraints(). Note also that it needs to happen in the executor, because infer_arbiter_indexes() may return immediately when ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING is used without the user specifying which particular constraint to use as an arbiter. (This is forbidden with ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE, since it doesn't make sense to not have an arbiter in mind there.) This is actually noted directly within infer_arbiter_indexes(), about half way down: /* * Extract info from the relation descriptor for the index. We know * that this is a target, so get lock type it is known will ultimately * be required by the executor. * * Let executor complain about !indimmediate case directly, because * enforcement needs to occur there anyway when an inference clause is * omitted. */ -- Peter Geoghegan -- 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: