Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yv7vk-0003pn-RV for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:37:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yv7vk-0000UQ-B7 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:37:20 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yv7vi-0000Rk-5D for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:37:18 +0000 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Yv7vf-0008DH-NH for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 17:37:16 +0000 Received: from intern.anarazel.de (unknown [184.23.178.130]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC752860001; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:37:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:37:06 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: Tom Lane Cc: Thom Brown , Peter Geoghegan , hlinnaka , Jeff Janes , Stephen Frost , Dean Rasheed , Bruce Momjian , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 Message-ID: <20150520173706.GF27868@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20150508150340.GJ12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150520165406.GD27868@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150520171116.GE27868@alap3.anarazel.de> <4215.1432143117@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4215.1432143117@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 2015-05-20 13:31:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Sure, but on what basis does it decide that there's a conflict? > > If you can't use an exclusion constraint to support the command, > then the error message shouldn't be worded like that. But you *can* use a exclusion constraint for DO NOTHING. Just not (yet) for DO UPDATE. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers