| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
| Date: | 2010-09-12 04:40:32 |
| Message-ID: | 29605.1284266432@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-docs |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We are not going to try to enforce uniqueness. This has been debated
>> before, and most people like the current behavior just fine, or at least
>> better than the alternatives.
> Really? I thought the issue was that no one had figured out how to do
> it, or that no one had written the patch, not that anyone thought the
> current behavior was particularly desirable. What happens if you say
> ALTER TABLE .. DROP CONSTRAINT or COMMENT ON CONSTRAINT? You just
> pick one at random?
No, because those syntaxes constrain the choice to one single
constraint. Perhaps if the SQL committee had designed 'em,
there'd be an issue; but they are Postgres-isms.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-12 04:51:32 | Re: 9.0 Bug: cannot build against python3.1, with two versions of python in the environment |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-12 00:24:55 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-12 13:47:28 | Re: Missing Win32 archive_command example |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-12 00:37:04 | Re: Compiling and Linking Dynamically-Loaded Functions on Windows |