| From: | "David Johnston" <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Merlin Moncure'" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Misa Simic'" <misa(dot)simic(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz'" <postgresql4(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unique across two tables |
| Date: | 2011-06-22 16:30:29 |
| Message-ID: | 026301cc30f9$b341ddd0$19c59970$@yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> yeah -- postgresql table inheritance [...] underpins the table inheritance
feature [...]
Thank you Master of the Obvious ;)
I do think you meant to say it underpins the "Table Partitioning Feature"
which, through the use of INSERT triggers to at least propagate the inserts
to the proper tables, it indeed does.
The only (obvious to me) way to really solve the problem - invisibly - is to
allow for table-less unique indexes that multiple tables can share and that
have a pointer to the "source" table for any particular entry in the index.
The other method being discussed effectively uses a physical table to
implement this behavior.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2011-06-22 16:33:10 | Re: data compression in protocol? |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2011-06-22 16:27:43 | Re: building 9.1 on suse-11.4 (64bit) |