Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.5 release notes may need ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING compatibility notice for FDW authors
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > I think that those are interesting problems. Wouldn't we need some > additional hacks for the core or FDW to perform an operation that is > equivalent to dynamically switching the ExecInsert/ExecForeignInsert > processing to the ExecUpdate/ExecForeignUpdate processing in case of a > conflict? I did not imagine so. Rather, I thought that it was a matter of simply introducing a way that foreign tables can have foreign constraints recognizable by the local Postgres optimizer. The decision to insert or update must belong to the foreign server, since the feature could be useful for systems like MySQL, and not just Postgres. I may be mistaken. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] Re: 9.5 release notes may need ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING compatibility notice for FDW authors
On 2015/05/25 9:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote: AddForeignUpdateTargets() actually won't be called with ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE, and so it isn't exactly true that the only obstacle to making FDWs support ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE is around inference of arbiter unique indexes on the foreign side. It's *almost* true, though. I think that those are interesting problems. Wouldn't we need some additional hacks for the core or FDW to perform an operation that is equivalent to dynamically switching the ExecInsert/ExecForeignInsert processing to the ExecUpdate/ExecForeignUpdate processing in case of a conflict? 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
