Re: Another unexpected behaviour

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Samuel Hwang <samuel(at)replicon(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another unexpected behaviour
Date: 2011-07-20 15:51:49
Message-ID: 12523.1311177109@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Samuel Hwang <samuel(at)replicon(dot)com> writes:
> Thanks. But I am not looking for how to avoid the problem at this
> moment,
> I am more interested in why PostgreSQL is designed to work this way.

Performance --- it's significantly more expensive to do a deferred
uniqueness check, since you have to visit the index a second time.
Also backwards compatibility with older versions of PG, which did
not have support for deferred uniqueness checks at all.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-07-20 15:55:26 Re: Another unexpected behaviour
Previous Message Samuel Hwang 2011-07-20 15:22:58 Re: Another unexpected behaviour