On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is pretty lousy. The reasons why the user wants things > that way is because they created a UNIQUE index and it got bloated > somehow with lots of dead tuples. So they made a new UNIQUE index on > the same column and then they're planning to do a DROP INDEX > CONCURRENTLY on the old one, which is maybe even now in progress. And > now they start getting duplicate key failures, the avoidance of which > was their whole reason for using UPSERT in the first place. If I were > that user, I'd report that as a bug, and if someone told me that it > was intended behavior, I'd say "oh, so you deliberately designed this > feature to not work some of the time?". > > ISTM that we need to (1) decide which operator we're using to compare > and then (2) tolerate conflicts in every index that uses that > operator. In most cases there will only be one, but if there are > more, so be it.
On reflection, I see your point. I'll try and do something about this too. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
