From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: If an index depends on no columns of its table, give it a |
Date: | 2007-11-10 07:36:19 |
Message-ID: | 1194680179.4251.525.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That was my first reaction too, but the point about unique-index behavior
> >> refutes it. Constraining a table to have at most one row is useful.
>
> > Sure is, and I've done it just a few days ago.
>
> > This SQL does it using standard syntax:
>
> > create table foo (handle integer primary key check (handle = 1));
>
> That does not constrain the table to have only one row. It constrains
> it to have only one value of the handle field (thereby making the field
> useless).
It works, sure you need another column to put data in.
> The fact that there are workarounds isn't a reason to not
> support the index option.
The above is not a workaround. It is the SQL Standard way of solving the
problem, so why support another non-standard way?
Constants in indexes are just a strangeness we don't need. Supporting
weird syntax because one person wants it has never been anything you've
advocated before, so I'm surprised to see that argument deployed here.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-11-10 14:07:18 | pgsql: Fix markup problem with recent pg_ctl change. |
Previous Message | User Xzilla | 2007-11-10 06:07:50 | mysqlcompat - mysqlcompat: we also need a version for int vars for oct() |