| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
| Date: | 2009-07-29 13:47:14 |
| Message-ID: | 16885.1248875234@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/7/29 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> For non-unique indexes, it is not required that <function>aminsert</>
>> do anything; it might for instance refuse to index NULLs.
> Doesn't this comment apply equally to unique indexes?
Hmm, I was thinking that a unique-capable index would have to index all
tuples. But I guess if it's restricted to one index column (like hash)
it could omit nulls and still enforce uniqueness correctly. I'll change
that comment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-29 13:53:34 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-29 13:28:24 | Re: dependencies for generated header files |