On 07/19/2015 08:04 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
W dniu 19.07.2015 o 16:33, Adrian Klaver pisze:
On 07/19/2015 06:47 AM, Rafal Pietrak wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 19.07.2015 o 14:10, Geoff Winkless pisze:
On 19 July 2015 at 11:30, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@xxxxxxxxx
[---------------]
Although "a random" can duplicate its previous values, "my random(s)"
(which are created for this application purpose) cannot be duplicated
when it's stored in the database as "live active data". I understand,
that UNIQUE constraint is precisely the RDBMS tool to guarantee that.
From my perspective the issue is, you are using a 'unique' key generator
that you know is not creating unique keys and then asking the database
to make it right. Sort of like making a square peg fit a round hole by
shaving the corners. It is possible but has sort of a messy feel to it.
Hmmm, yes.
Yet, I don't feel guilty as much, since that is quite similar to a
unique key on database "username", while the "generator" (human mind)
does not guarantee that. The DB just makes sure it does.
I think the argument to be made here is you have no control over what
people choose as a username, you do have control over what your key
generator outputs.
[--------------]
So an UPSERT is just one feature of ON CONFLICT. The other being DO
NOTHING. Therefore I could see an argument made for adding other ON
CONFLICT clauses. How difficult/plausible that would be is above my
level of expertise.
Mine too. But I'd say that the above wording exactly makes the point I
was trying to make. Thank you.
-R
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
