Re: Accessing composite type columns in indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Accessing composite type columns in indexes
Date: 2006-03-04 05:17:39
Message-ID: 11251.1141449459@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> writes:
> Except, why doesn't it work in the CREATE TABLE statement?

The UNIQUE/PRIMARY KEY syntax only allows bare column names, per the SQL
standard. While there's not any technical reason why we couldn't extend
that syntax, there's a pretty large fear factor involved: we could find
ourselves behind the spec-compliance eight-ball if the SQL committee
exercises their prerogative to extend the syntax in some other
direction. CREATE INDEX is entirely outside the spec (as the whole
concept of indexes is outside the spec) and so we can pretty much do
what we please within that statement.

This is exactly the same reason why we don't support opclass names in
UNIQUE/PRIMARY KEY, as has been suggested several times recently, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-03/msg00163.php

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Glaesemann 2006-03-04 05:45:18 Re: Accessing composite type columns in indexes
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2006-03-04 05:06:21 Re: Accessing composite type columns in indexes