On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That was my first reaction too, but the point about unique-index behavior
> >> refutes it. Constraining a table to have at most one row is useful.
> > Sure is, and I've done it just a few days ago.
> > This SQL does it using standard syntax:
> > create table foo (handle integer primary key check (handle = 1));
> That does not constrain the table to have only one row. It constrains
> it to have only one value of the handle field (thereby making the field
It works, sure you need another column to put data in.
> The fact that there are workarounds isn't a reason to not
> support the index option.
The above is not a workaround. It is the SQL Standard way of solving the
problem, so why support another non-standard way?
Constants in indexes are just a strangeness we don't need. Supporting
weird syntax because one person wants it has never been anything you've
advocated before, so I'm surprised to see that argument deployed here.
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-11-10 14:07:18|
|Subject: pgsql: Fix markup problem with recent pg_ctl change.|
|Previous:||From: User Xzilla||Date: 2007-11-10 06:07:50|
|Subject: mysqlcompat - mysqlcompat: we also need a version for int vars for oct() |