| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Matt Newell <newellm(at)blur(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint |
| Date: | 2005-11-13 15:28:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4185.1131895708@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Maybe the solution is to make inherited tables actually the same table,
> and jank it with an extra per-row attribute to differentiate them or
> something :)
Aside from destroying the inheritance-for-partitioning stuff, this
wouldn't work for multiple inheritance, so I'm afraid it's not a very
attractive alternative.
Matt's idea about keeping the indexes separate seems that it probably
*would* work, modulo some lingering worries about when to take what kind
of lock on the index-set-as-a-whole. It seems worth pursuing, anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-13 16:04:55 | Re: prepareThreshold=1 and statement.executeBatch() ?? |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-13 15:19:12 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-11-13 16:12:19 | Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint |
| Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2005-11-13 11:52:28 | contrib/xinetops for 8.1 "patch" |