Re: adding support for zero-attribute unique/etc keys

From: Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: adding support for zero-attribute unique/etc keys
Date: 2013-03-25 21:50:48
Message-ID: CADxJZo0MaMRUNEm4Akm_pWDr2hBBgzN3MxoTRx-WH1445GQXsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26 March 2013 05:04, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> wrote:
> On 2013.03.25 1:17 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> The desired effect can be had today with a unique index:
>>
>> CREATE TABLE singleton (id integer);
>> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX singleton_idx ON singleton((1));
>
> Okay, that is helpful, and less of a kludge than what I was doing, but it is
> still a kludge compared to what I'm proposing, which I see as elegant.
>

FWIW I think an index on (TRUE) expresses the intention more clearly
than an index on () would.

I don't have any objection to the purely logical sense of the
zero-attribute key, but it's hard to see the pragmatic value.

Cheers,
BJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-03-25 21:53:33 Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2013-03-25 21:23:23 Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay