On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > It is? In any case, I'm working on a revision with this syntax:
By the way, in my next revision, barring any objections, the ON CONFLICT (column/expression) syntax is mandatory in the case of ON CONFLICT UPDATE, and optional in the case of ON CONFLICT IGNORE. If we end up supporting exclusion constraints, it's pretty clear that they're only useful with ON CONFLICT IGNORE anyway, and so I guess we don't have to worry about naming those. I guess there would be some advantage to naming an exclusion constraint directly even for the IGNORE case (which is another reason I considered naming an index directly), but it doesn't seem that important. -- 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
