Re: [HACKERS] Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml
On 2015/10/03 5:57, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be defined locally in 9.5. How about "unique constraints or exclusion constraints on remote tables are not locally known"? Attached is a patch for that. Makes sense to me. Me, too. Committed. Thanks! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita > wrote: >> ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is >> somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be >> defined locally in 9.5. How about "unique constraints or exclusion >> constraints on remote tables are not locally known"? Attached is a >> patch for that. > > Makes sense to me. Me, too. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is > somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be > defined locally in 9.5. How about "unique constraints or exclusion > constraints on remote tables are not locally known"? Attached is a > patch for that. Makes sense to me. -- 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
[HACKERS] Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml
The following is a remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml. INSERT with an ON CONFLICT clause does not support specifying the conflict target, as remote constraints are not locally known. This in turn implies that ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE is not supported, since the specification is mandatory there. ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be defined locally in 9.5. How about "unique constraints or exclusion constraints on remote tables are not locally known"? Attached is a patch for that. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita *** a/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/fdwhandler.sgml *** *** 1196,1204 GetForeignServerByName(const char *name, bool missing_ok); INSERT with an ON CONFLICT clause does not ! support specifying the conflict target, as remote constraints are not ! locally known. This in turn implies that ON CONFLICT DO ! UPDATE is not supported, since the specification is mandatory there. --- 1196,1205 INSERT with an ON CONFLICT clause does not ! support specifying the conflict target, as unique constraints or ! exclusion constraints on remote tables are not locally known. This ! in turn implies that ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE is not supported, ! since the specification is mandatory there. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
