| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-09-29 22:16:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1412029009.64372.YahooMailNeo@web122301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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. 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.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-29 22:20:37 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-29 22:09:53 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |