| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints |
| Date: | 2011-07-25 18:29:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1311618581.31101.53.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 23:35 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-07-13 at 11:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Our standard reason for not implementing UNIQUE constraints on
> > expressions has been that then you would have a thing that claims to be
> > a UNIQUE constraint but isn't representable in the information_schema
> > views that are supposed to show UNIQUE constraints. We avoid this
> > objection in the current design by shoving all that functionality into
> > EXCLUDE constraints, which are clearly outside the scope of the spec.
>
> I have never heard that reason before, and I think it's a pretty poor
> one. There are a lot of other things that are not representable in the
> information schema.
I think what Tom is saying is that the information_schema might appear
inconsistent to someone following the spec.
Can you give another example where we do something like that?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2011-07-25 18:37:29 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-25 17:57:40 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |