| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints | 
| Date: | 2002-07-13 15:08:21 | 
| Message-ID: | 1026572902.30427.161.camel@jester | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 10:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > I prefer ...add constraint.  After a while (release or 2) removal of
> > > > create unique index all together.
> > > 
> > > Remove CREATE UNIQUE INDEX entirely?  Why?
> > 
> > I was looking to encourage users to use core SQL as I spend more time
> > than I want converting between systems -- thanks in part to users who
> > create non-portable structures.
> > 
> > Temporarily forgot there are index types other than btree :)
> 
> Not so much non-btree, but non-unique indexes themselves.  UNIQUE index
> is funny because it is a constraint and an performance utility.  I see
> your point that a constraint is more ANSI standard, but because we can't
Yup.  Makes sense.  I submitted a patch which retains the difference. 
If the index is created with CREATE UNIQUE, it's dumped with CREATE
UNIQUE.  Constraint UNIQUE is treated likewise.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-13 15:11:40 | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints | 
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-07-13 15:05:16 | Re: Memo on dropping practices |