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
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 |