From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: small exclusion constraints patch |
Date: | 2010-05-30 14:01:46 |
Message-ID: | 5141.1275228106@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-05-30 06:55 +0300, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've often wished for the ability to constrain a tale to hold just one
>> row, so I don't find that use case implausible at all.
> As I pointed out in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01177.php , you
> can already do that.
Yes. This is NOT about constraining a table to hold only one row.
It's about requiring all its rows to hold the same value (in some
column(s)), without predetermining exactly which value that will be.
I think the use-case for that is really extremely narrow.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-30 14:19:06 | Re: Is there anyway to get list of table name, before raw parser is analyze? |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-30 13:53:53 | Re: dividing money by money |