On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >> In my opinion, for the very limited ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING + no >> inference specification case, the implementation should not care about >> the presence or absence of unique indexes within or across partitions. > > Hmm. That's an interesting point. The documentation says: > > ON CONFLICT can be used to specify an alternative action to raising a > unique constraint or exclusion constraint violation error. > > And, indeed, you could get an unique constraint or exclusion error > because of an index on the child even though it's not global to the > partitioning hierarchy. So maybe we can support this after all, but > having messed it up once, I'm inclined to think we should postpone > this to v11, think it over some more, and try to make sure that our > second try doesn't crash...
Naturally this means that the partitioning work will be reverted as well, since we have a consensus that new features shouldn't make preexisting ones worse. It's a shame, since I was really hoping to see it in 10.0. ♜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
