From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Dalphin <mdalphin(at)amgen(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] UNIQUE constraint no longer works under 6.5.1 |
Date: | 1999-08-14 15:17:59 |
Message-ID: | 37B588A7.1DF3F239@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> Interesting. Playing with some variants of your example shows that
> UNIQUE works fine *unless* there is another column marked PRIMARY KEY.
> Then the UNIQUE constraint is ignored. Looks like a simple logic bug in
> the table-definition expander.
> A look at the CVS logs reveals this apparently related entry for
> parser/analyze.c:
> revision 1.102
> date: 1999/05/12 07:17:18; author: thomas; state: Exp; lines: +68 -24
> Fix problem with multiple indices defined if using column- and table-
> constraints. Reported by Tom Lane.
> Now, check for duplicate indices and retain the one which is a primary-key.
Yow! The problem reported earlier (by you, so you share some blame! ;)
was that if one specified a primary key *and* a unique constraint, and
they both pointed to the same column, then you got two indices
created. So I tried to go through the list of indices and drop any
which seemed to be the same as the primary key index.
I apparently hadn't tested for this reported case (obviously :() but
it should be easy to fix. I'll look at it soon, unless someone already
has.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hub.Org News Admin | 1999-08-14 23:17:51 | |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-14 14:46:31 | Re: [BUGS] UNIQUE constraint no longer works under 6.5.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-08-14 15:26:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Anyone recognise this error from PL/pgSQL? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-14 15:10:22 | Re: [SQL] Anyone recognise this error from PL/pgSQL? |