Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys
Date: 2010-06-30 23:41:56
Message-ID: 20052.1277941316@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The detailed definition is amazingly laborious and yet limited, though,
>> as it basically doesn't address the problem except for that specific
>> case and close relatives.

> Well, solving the problem in general is equivalent to the halting problem, so...

So is proving determinism.  They had the sense to *not* try to define
what that means.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-01 00:52:18
Subject: Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-06-30 23:41:53
Subject: Re: 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group