Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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 20:40:07
Message-ID: 12804.1179434407@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

I wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Does the SQL spec actually specify what happens if you provide an
>> non-compliant table definition like this?

> It does not. We could accept expressions there, and pray that the SQL
> committee never extends the spec syntax in a direction incompatible with
> that. That seems like a pretty risky thing to do though.

[ remembering previous discussions more clearly... ] Actually there
is a concrete problem here: unique constraints are supposed to be
represented in the information_schema views, and there is no
spec-compliant way to do that for a constraint on something other than
a column. We'd have to guess at what the SQL committee would do about
that, and the odds of guessing exactly right don't seem encouraging.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-05-17 21:18:35 Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-17 20:16:25 Re: Planning large IN lists

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-05-17 21:18:35 Re: UTF8MatchText
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-05-17 20:04:32 Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support