| 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 19:15:50 |
| Message-ID: | 6389.1248808550@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 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
> index.
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql | 2009-07-28 19:21:12 | xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-28 19:12:40 | Re: system timezone regression failure |