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-Wzm5RB4H=yiZBJJ5ONQOECb15=KjkS=ZC+r8j56OhTLNhg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching the ON CONFLICT (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #14526: no unique or exclusion constraint matching theON CONFLICT
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > btw ... not relevant to this particular complaint, but I notice that > infer_arbiter_indexes will accept an index that is indisvalid and > indisunique, but should it be checking indimmediate as well? That is, > does the ON CONFLICT code work if the uniqueness checks are deferred? > I could not find any regression tests exercising such a case. It won't work with deferrable constraints (even when immediate enforcement is in effect, so obscure reasons). Enforcement occurs in the executor -- see ExecCheckIndexConstraints(). You may recall that I wrote a refactoring patch that attempted to make the situation clearer, which Heikki didn't like. Currently, the constant UNIQUE_CHECK_PARTIAL is sort of overloaded to also be used with speculative insertion, which, aside from being ugly, has various minor practical disadvantages. -- 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: