Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 13:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we had better add the deferrability state to pg_index
>> to avoid this.
> This might make it difficult to allow multiple constraints to use the
> same index.
Huh? That hardly seems possible anyway, if some of them want deferred
checks and others do not.
> I'm trying to figure out how this fits with the generalized index
> constraints idea. We may want the generalized index constraints to have
> the same "immediate" behavior, but that doesn't have much to do with the
Sure it does. Whether the check is immediate must be considered a
property of the index itself. Any checking you do later could be
per-constraint, but the index is either going to fail at insert or not.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: pgsql||Date: 2009-07-28 19:21:12|
|Subject: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-07-28 19:12:40|
|Subject: Re: system timezone regression failure |