Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Matt Newell <newellm(at)blur(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint
Date: 2005-11-13 06:15:14
Message-ID: 4376D9F2.4050807@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> Most of the people who have thought about this have figured that the
> right solution involves a single index spanning multiple tables (hence,
> adding a table ID to the index entry headers in such indexes). This
> fixes the lookup and entry problems, but it's not any help for the
> lock-against-schema-mods problem, and it leaves you with a real headache
> if you want to drop just one of the tables.
>
> 'Tis a hard problem :-(

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 :)

Might make constraint_exclusion less useful then.

Chris

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Brown 2005-11-13 06:46:33 Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload
Previous Message Samer Abukhait 2005-11-13 05:01:29 Re: CONNECT BY PRIOR

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen R. van den Berg 2005-11-13 11:52:28 contrib/xinetops for 8.1 "patch"
Previous Message Qingqing Zhou 2005-11-12 23:21:55 Re: Add missing const qualifier in ECPG