On 2015-06-25 AM 09:51, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> On 2015-06-25 AM 02:35, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> Inheritance with triggers is a leaky abstraction, so this kind of
>> thing is always awkward. Still, UPSERT has full support for
>> *inheritance* -- that just doesn't help in this case.
On 24 June 2015 at 15:05, Fujii Masao wrote:
> How should we treat this problem for 9.5? If we want to fix this problem
> completely, probably we would need to make constraint_exclusion work with
> even UPSERT. Which sounds difficult to do at least for 9.5. Any other idea?
> Or we should just tr
On 6/24/15 1:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I think that the real way to fix this is, as you say, to make it so
that it isn't necessary in general to write trigger functions like
this to make inheritance work.
Excuse me -- I mean to make
Peter,
On 2015-06-25 AM 02:35, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> Inheritance with triggers is a leaky abstraction, so this kind of
> thing is always awkward. Still, UPSERT has full support for
> *inheritance* -- that just doesn't help in this case.
>
Could you clarify as to what UPSERT's support for
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that the real way to fix this is, as you say, to make it so
> that it isn't necessary in general to write trigger functions like
> this to make inheritance work.
Excuse me -- I mean to make *partitioning* work.
--
Peter Geoghega
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> How should we treat this problem for 9.5? If we want to fix this problem
> completely, probably we would need to make constraint_exclusion work with
> even UPSERT. Which sounds difficult to do at least for 9.5. Any other idea?
> Or we should ju
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Is the root of the problem that the trigger is called for an INSERT ..
> ON CONFLICT statement but it turns that into a plain INSERT?
>
> Is there any way of writing a partitioning trigger that doesn't have
> that defect?
We did discuss whethe
On 2015-06-24 10:38:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-06-24 23:05:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> INSERT ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE doesn't seem to work on the current
> >> partitioning
> >> mechanism. For example, in the following SQL
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-24 23:05:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> INSERT ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE doesn't seem to work on the current partitioning
>> mechanism. For example, in the following SQL commands, the last UPSERT
>> command
>> would fail with an err
Hi,
On 2015-06-24 23:05:45 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> INSERT ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE doesn't seem to work on the current partitioning
> mechanism. For example, in the following SQL commands, the last UPSERT command
> would fail with an error. The error message is
I think that's pretty much inevita
Hi,
INSERT ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE doesn't seem to work on the current partitioning
mechanism. For example, in the following SQL commands, the last UPSERT command
would fail with an error. The error message is
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "hoge_20150601_pkey"
DETAI
11 matches
Mail list logo
