On 2017/08/02 9:31, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/08/02 4:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> So is the latest patch posted upthread to process ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
>>> using locally-defined unique indexes on leaf partitions something to
>>> con
On 2017/08/02 4:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> So is the latest patch posted upthread to process ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
>> using locally-defined unique indexes on leaf partitions something to
>> consider?
>
> Yeah, for v11.
OK.
>> Maybe, not
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> So is the latest patch posted upthread to process ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
> using locally-defined unique indexes on leaf partitions something to consider?
Yeah, for v11.
> Maybe, not until we have cascading index definition working [1]?
Not
On 2017/08/01 10:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Since nowhere has the user asked to ensure unique(b) across partitions by
>> defining the same on parent, this seems just fine. But one question to
>> ask may be whether that will *always* be the ca
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Since nowhere has the user asked to ensure unique(b) across partitions by
> defining the same on parent, this seems just fine. But one question to
> ask may be whether that will *always* be the case? That is, will we take
> ON CONFLICT DO NOT
On 2017/04/01 6:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan 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 acros
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan 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
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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 incl
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan 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 p
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> /*
> * Open partition indices (remember we do not support ON CONFLICT in
> * case of partitioned tables, so we do not need support information
> * for speculative insertion)
> */
>
> Part of the quest
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> I found out why the crash occurs, but while I was trying to fix it, I
> started growing doubtful about the way this is being handled currently.
>
> Patch to fix the crash would be to pass 'true' instead of 'false' for
> speculative when ExecSe
Shinoda-san,
Thanks a lot for testing.
On 2017/03/30 10:30, Shinoda, Noriyoshi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried this feature using most recently snapshot. In case of added
> constraint PRIMARY KEY for partition table, INSERT ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING
> statement failed with segmentaion fault.
> If th
On 2017/03/30 18:02, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> This should be added to the open items list. I am not able to add it
> myself, as I don't have "editor" privileges on open items wiki. I have
> requested for those privileges.
I am going to shortly, after I reply to Shinoda-san's report. While the
cras
ssage-
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Langote
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:56 AM
> To: Robert Haas
> Cc: Peter Geoghegan ; Simon Riggs ;
> PostgreSQL Hackers ; Thom Brown
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
oghegan ; Simon Riggs ;
PostgreSQL Hackers ; Thom Brown
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT
On 2017/03/27 23:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/09 23:25,
On 2017/03/27 23:40, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply re
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in
transformInsertStmt() t
On 2017/03/10 9:10, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in
>>> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on
>>> partitioned ta
On 2017/03/09 23:25, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I updated the patch. Now it's reduced to simply removing the check in
>> transformInsertStmt() that prevented using *any* ON CONFLICT on
>> partitioned tables at all.
>
> This patch no longer applies
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2017/02/17 14:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error out
>>> with the patch. As discussed here, DO UPDATE cannot be s
On 2017/02/17 14:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error out
>> with the patch. As discussed here, DO UPDATE cannot be supported at the
>> moment.
>
> Maybe you should just let in
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Attached patch fixes that. Thom, your example query should not error out
> with the patch. As discussed here, DO UPDATE cannot be supported at the
> moment.
Maybe you should just let infer_arbiter_indexes() fail, rather than
enforcing this
On 2017/02/17 13:25, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> would be working on a leaf partition chosen by tuple-routing after an
>> insert on a partitioned table. The leaf partitions can very well have a
>> unique index, which can be used for inference
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> would be working on a leaf partition chosen by tuple-routing after an
> insert on a partitioned table. The leaf partitions can very well have a
> unique index, which can be used for inference. The problem however is
> that infer_arbiter_inde
On 2017/02/17 1:17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> But surely it should be possible to use DO NOTHING without inferring some
> particular unique index? That's possible with an approach based on
> inheritance.
Hmm. Code after the following comment fragment in ExecInsert():
* Do a non-concl
But surely it should be possible to use DO NOTHING without inferring some
particular unique index? That's possible with an approach based on
inheritance.
--
Peter Geoghegan
(Sent from my phone)
On 16 February 2017 at 14:54, Thom Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment, partitioned tables have a restriction that prevents
> them allowing INSERT ... ON CONFLICT ... statements:
>
> postgres=# INSERT INTO cities SELECT 1, 'Crawley',105000 ON CONFLICT
> (city_id) DO NOTHING;
> ERROR: ON CONFLICT
27 matches
Mail list logo
