Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug in the information_schema.referential_constraints

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: malerba(at)gnome-db(dot)org, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in the information_schema.referential_constraints
Date: 2003-10-16 23:47:11
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310162238560.21950-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
I have fixed the problem with the keys being in different order and the
problem of missing unique constraints.

Tom Lane writes:

> >> Which there may not be (the backend code for creating an FK checks for a
> >> matching unique index, quite a different animal).
>
> > I think that should be changed.
>
> No, because that would entail a genuine loss of capability: FK
> constraints couldn't be built using indexes that were made by CREATE
> UNIQUE INDEX rather than through the unique/pk constraint syntax.
> In particular this would mean that non-btree indexes could not be used.

But that means the deficiency is elsewhere, namely that you cannot build
non-btree indexes for primary key or unique constraints.

> (Yes, I know that as of today we don't have UNIQUE support in any of the
> non-btree index types, but that will change.  IIRC Neil Conway has
> already been working on unique hashes, and I'm sure GIST will support it
> eventually as well.)

Isn't the whole unique index thing a dead end anyway?  How are we ever
going to get deferrable unique constraints that way?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net


In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-16 23:58:37
Subject: Re: Bug in the information_schema.referential_constraints view
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-16 19:33:18
Subject: Re: Bug in the information_schema.referential_constraints view

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group