Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints
Date: 2009-07-28 00:15:55
Message-ID: 27719.1248740155@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (thinks...) Actually, u for unique might be a poor choice if Jeff's
>> patch goes in and starts using it for things that aren't exactly
>> unique indexes. Should it be just conindid?

> My thoughts exactly.

On looking closer, it appears we should populate this column for FKEY
constraints too --- for example this would greatly simplify some
of the information_schema views (cf _pg_underlying_index).

Now those references will also point at unique indexes, but still this
seems like another reason to use a relatively generic column name.
conindid it is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2009-07-28 00:19:44 Re: When is a record NULL?
Previous Message Greg Stark 2009-07-28 00:14:23 Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints