public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Paul Jungwirth <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 15:51:28 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxF8HyERm7SKBJ+duxAP9sTgVhaW6b-oWADANGgn-o4wPA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHsYDfHK62FTHdLsgDenvJd_bEuxCiyH62Lacj7NvzX4w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoaH-2fAttd24pA3p45TUHbM9hRU6ud=brhKsp9ENHXWDg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobfDJuXJATNUco+g6AiUb3WS2Pi9FrJe9hKAHGw37RX-g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On 30.04.24 18:39, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> On 4/30/24 09:24, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Peter, could you have a look at
>> http://postgr.es/m/[email protected]
>> and express an opinion about whether each of those proposals are (a)
>> good or bad ideas and (b) whether they need to be fixed for the
>> current release?
>
> Here are the same patches but rebased.
I have committed v2-0002-Add-test-for-REPLICA-IDENTITY-with-a-temporal-key.patch.
About v2-0001-Fix-ON-CONFLICT-DO-NOTHING-UPDATE-for-temporal-in.patch, I think the
ideas are right, but I wonder if we can fine-tune the new conditionals a bit.
--- a/src/backend/executor/execIndexing.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/execIndexing.c
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ ExecOpenIndices(ResultRelInfo *resultRelInfo, bool speculative)
* If the indexes are to be used for speculative insertion, add extra
* information required by unique index entries.
*/
- if (speculative && ii->ii_Unique)
+ if (speculative && ii->ii_Unique && !ii->ii_HasWithoutOverlaps)
BuildSpeculativeIndexInfo(indexDesc, ii);
Here, I think we could check !indexDesc->rd_index->indisexclusion instead. So we
wouldn't need ii_HasWithoutOverlaps.
Or we could push this into BuildSpeculativeIndexInfo(); it could just skip the rest
if an exclusion constraint is passed, on the theory that all the speculative index
info is already present in that case.
--- a/src/backend/optimizer/util/plancat.c
+++ b/src/backend/optimizer/util/plancat.c
@@ -815,7 +815,7 @@ infer_arbiter_indexes(PlannerInfo *root)
*/
if (indexOidFromConstraint == idxForm->indexrelid)
{
- if (!idxForm->indisunique && onconflict->action == ONCONFLICT_UPDATE)
+ if ((!idxForm->indisunique || idxForm->indisexclusion) && onconflict->action == ONCONFLICT_UPDATE)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE),
errmsg("ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE not supported with exclusion constraints")));
Shouldn't this use only idxForm->indisexclusion anyway? Like
+ if (idxForm->indisexclusion && onconflict->action == ONCONFLICT_UPDATE)
That matches what the error message is reporting afterwards.
* constraints), so index under consideration can be immediately
* skipped if it's not unique
*/
- if (!idxForm->indisunique)
+ if (!idxForm->indisunique || idxForm->indisexclusion)
goto next;
Maybe here we need a comment. Or make that a separate statement, like
/* not supported yet etc. */
if (idxForm->indixexclusion)
next;
view thread (17+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox