Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2010-12-01 15:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed. This isn't even worth the time to review, unless you have a
>> proposal for fixing the unique-index-across-multiple-tables problem.
> That was in the part that you chose to not quote.
Perhaps I should have said "possibly workable proposal". What you wrote
doesn't even begin to cover the interesting part of the problem, namely
how to ensure uniqueness is preserved in the face of concurrent
insertions.
(My current feelings about this are that a general-purpose solution
would probably cost more than it's worth. What people really care
about is FK to a partitioned table, which is a structure in which
we don't have to solve the general problem: if we know that the
partitioning prevents the same key from appearing in multiple
partitions, then we only have to look into one partition. So this
is just another item that's pending introduction of real partitioning
infrastructure.)
regards, tom lane