Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

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: 2009-07-27 23:12:31
Message-ID: 18307.1248736351@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:
> 2009/7/27 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
>> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 16:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If we did add another column to pg_trigger, I'd be a bit tempted to add
>>> one to pg_constraint too.
>>
>> That would work great for me, as I was planning to add such a column
>> anyway for my "generalized index constraints" patch.

> Yes that seems like the most sensible option to me.

Okay. I will go off and do that, then come back to Dean's patch.
Proposed names:

pg_trigger.tgconstrindid analogous to tgconstrrelid
pg_constraint.conuindid analogous to confrelid

where the latter will be populated for any unique or pkey constraint.
The former will be always 0 for the moment, but we'll start filling
it in with Dean's patch.

(thinks...) Actually, u for unique might be a poor choice if Jeff's
patch goes in and starts using it for things that aren't exactly
unique indexes. Should it be just conindid?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-07-27 23:14:01 Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-27 23:04:38 Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints