On 19 May 2015 at 21:12, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > It's trivial to modify Postgres to not require that a specific unique > index be inferred, so that you can omit the inference specification > for DO UPDATE just as you can for DO NOTHING. That would make it work > in a similar way to MySQL; whatever actually conflict was detected > would be assumed to be cause to take the alternative update path. >
​Except that would break the deterministic behaviour, surely? Because if you only updated one row based on which constraint matched first, the row that was updated would depend on the order in which the constraints were evaluated, yes? I was expecting that matching two constraints would end up UPDATEing two separate rows. I have a hard time imagining why you'd ever not want to be explicit > about what to take the alternative path on for the DO UPDATE variant. > > What do you have in mind? If I'm being honest, my main driver is laziness :) I don't mind specifying the constraint if I can understand why it's required, but otherwise it just seems like I need to do more typing for no reason. Especially when there's only one unique constraint on a table. Geoff
