| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 19:34:23 |
| Message-ID: | 525D98BF.6020202@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/15/2013 12:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> However, it does seem like the new syntax could be extended with and
>> optional "USING unqiue_index_name" in the future (9.5), no?
>
> There is no reason why we couldn't do that and just consider that one
> unique index. Whether we should is another question -
What's the "shouldn't" argument, if any?
> I certainly
> think that mandating it would be very bad.
Agreed. If there is a PK, we should allow the user to use it implicitly.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-10-15 20:02:46 | Re: background workers, round three |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-15 19:03:29 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |