On 2017/08/01 10:52, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> 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 NOTHING without the conflict target specification to mean >> checking for conflicts on the individual leaf partition level, even in the >> future when we may have global constraints? > > No. We'll take it to mean that there is no conflict with any unique > constraint we're able to declare. Currently, that means a > partition-local unique constraint because that's all there is. It > will include any new things added in the future.
So is the latest patch posted upthread to process ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING using locally-defined unique indexes on leaf partitions something to consider? Maybe, not until we have cascading index definition working [1]? Thanks, Amit [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c8fe4f6b-ff46-aae0-89e3-e936a35f0cfd%40postgrespro.ru -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
