Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> In this variant, you explicitly specify the constraint by name.
>
> I do think it's a bit sad to not be able to specify unique indexes that
> aren't constraints. So I'd like to have a corresponding ON INDEX - which
> would be trivial.

Then what's the point of having ON CONSTRAINT? The point of it working
that way was we're not exposing the "implementation detail" of the
index. While I happen to think that that's a distinction without a
difference anyway, that certainly was the idea.

I would care about the fact that you can't name a unique index with no
constraint if there wasn't already a way of doing that with inference
(I'm thinking in particular of partial indexes here, which never have
constraints). But there is. So what's the problem?
-- 
Peter Geoghegan