Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1311618581.31101.53.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 23:35 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2011-07-13 at 11:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Our standard reason for not implementing UNIQUE constraints on > > expressions has been that then you would have a thing that claims to be > > a UNIQUE constraint but isn't representable in the information_schema > > views that are supposed to show UNIQUE constraints. We avoid this > > objection in the current design by shoving all that functionality into > > EXCLUDE constraints, which are clearly outside the scope of the spec. > > I have never heard that reason before, and I think it's a pretty poor > one. There are a lot of other things that are not representable in the > information schema. I think what Tom is saying is that the information_schema might appear inconsistent to someone following the spec. Can you give another example where we do something like that? Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: