| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "NikhilS" <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Trevor Hardcastle" <chizu(at)spicious(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| Date: | 2007-05-17 18:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 87y7jnpa6o.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I just now realized that even though we allow the above. We do not allow:
>
>> pg=# create table t1 (a int, b int, unique(a+b));
>
>> Any specific reason for this behaviour?
>
> It'd be contrary to SQL spec. The UNIQUE constraint takes a list of
> column names, full stop.
Does the SQL spec actually specify what happens if you provide an
non-compliant table definition like this?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atul Deopujari | 2007-05-17 19:01:20 | Re: Planning large IN lists |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-17 18:36:50 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-17 19:11:29 | Re: Diagnostic functions |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-17 18:36:50 | Re: UTF8MatchText |