| From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why does Postgres allow duplicate (FK) constraints |
| Date: | 2013-03-27 08:51:50 |
| Message-ID: | kiubt3$9s$1@ger.gmane.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane, 26.03.2013 17:16:
> The lack of any prohibition to the contrary means there is no way to
> argue that the code you showed previously violates the spec; thus,
> a database that fails to accept it is rejecting spec-compliant DDL.
I'm not claiming that the spec is violated...
(And I'm not complaining either. I'm just curious if there was a technical reason)
> Well, it's redundant, but that doesn't make it wrong. In any case,
> there are lots of ways that things might be redundant. Should we
> reject a unique constraint on (a,b) if there's already one on (b,a)?
> Or if there are separate unique constraints on each of a and b?
Hmm, good point.
Although I think a definition that is identical with regards of the columns and their position in the constraint _could_ be considered identical.
Anyway thanks for the feedback.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2013-03-27 08:54:03 | Re: Why does Postgres allow duplicate (FK) constraints |
| Previous Message | Misa Simic | 2013-03-27 08:27:19 | Re: Understanding behavior of SELECT with multiple unnested columns |