Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Instead of naming the index, you should name the columns, and >> the system can look up the index or indexes that match those >> columns. +1 That is what I have been consistently requesting instead of index names, every time I notice it mentioned. > It's not totally clear that we need *any* WITHIN clause, BTW. > I'm not dead set on it. It was something I mainly added at > Kevin's request. I do see the risks, though. What I said was in response to your assertion that your technique would *never* generate a duplicate key error. As others have again been pointing out, when there is more than one unique index you can have rows to apply which cannot be applied accurately without causing such an error. What I requested was that the behavior in those cases be clear and documented. I didn't take a position on whether you pick an index or ignore the input row (with a warning?), but we need to decide how it is handled. I have made the same point Heikki is making, though -- we have no business referencing an index name in the statement. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
