| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 00:24:55 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTin1vvc2Yfs3mBnmL_yCq3KRuMbo4zzGihsNcuQZ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-docs |
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? That's really what most people want?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-12 04:40:32 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-09-12 00:22:04 | 9.0 Bug: cannot build against python3.1, with two versions of python in the environment |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-12 00:36:09 | Re: Missing Win32 archive_command example |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-11 22:14:15 | Re: [DOCS] Doc fixes and improvements |