From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | <vhikida(at)inreach(dot)com>, "J(dot) Greenlees" <jaqui(at)telus(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unique Index |
Date: | 2005-01-20 00:28:11 |
Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F89441547055823@postal.corporate.connx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:27 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: vhikida(at)inreach(dot)com; J. Greenlees; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null
value
> into a unique index should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
> error).
AFAICT the UNIQUE constraint that it's used to model explicitly allows
multiple NULLs in the spec so I don't see making it error as being
terribly workable.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-20 00:36:42 | Re: Why? |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2005-01-20 00:26:30 | Re: Unique Index |