| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension |
| Date: | 2014-06-10 22:21:58 |
| Message-ID: | 53978506.3080004@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/09/2014 07:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-06-09 13:42:22 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 06/09/2014 09:06 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>> From memory all unique keys can be considered 'candidate primary keys',
>>> but only one can be designated 'the PRIMARY KEY'.
>>
>> Almost. Candidate keys are also NOT NULL.
>
> The list actually is a bit longer. They also cannot be partial.
What? AFAIK, that only applies to an index. How can the data itself be
partial?
> There's generally also the restriction that for some contexts - like
> e.g. foreign keys - primary/candidate keys may not be deferrable..
Again, what is deferrable data?
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-06-10 23:18:39 | Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner? |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2014-06-10 21:46:19 | Re: Why is it "JSQuery"? |