Re: weird ON CONFLICT clauses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: weird ON CONFLICT clauses
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzn38BS7b0yqMy9AxZHjbcH4bBaFtwVRTpLaHW93oHiGLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to weird ON CONFLICT clauses  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 11:00 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> Why do we accept reloptions there without complaint?  Should we tighten
> this up a little bit, or maybe it makes sense to accept this for some
> reason?  I suspect the reloptions were added to index_elems after the ON
> CONFLICT clause was made to use that production, but I didn't check the
> git history.

index_elems is needed by ON CONFLICT so that the user can specify an
operator class and/or a collation. This is probably hardly ever used,
but it does have its place.

> So what about the attached patch?  I ran all tests and everything seems
> to work correctly.  (Maybe I'd add some tests to verify that this
> new error is covered, as the ones just above.)  It would complain to the
> above:

Seems reasonable to me.

--
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Maxim Orlov
Date:
Subject: Using MyDatabaseId in SET_LOCKTAG_APPLY_TRANSACTION
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Second RewriteQuery complains about first RewriteQuery in edge case