| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "NikhilS" <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Trevor Hardcastle" <chizu(at)spicious(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| Date: | 2007-05-17 20:40:07 |
| Message-ID: | 12804.1179434407@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Does the SQL spec actually specify what happens if you provide an
>> non-compliant table definition like this?
> It does not. We could accept expressions there, and pray that the SQL
> committee never extends the spec syntax in a direction incompatible with
> that. That seems like a pretty risky thing to do though.
[ remembering previous discussions more clearly... ] Actually there
is a concrete problem here: unique constraints are supposed to be
represented in the information_schema views, and there is no
spec-compliant way to do that for a constraint on something other than
a column. We'd have to guess at what the SQL committee would do about
that, and the odds of guessing exactly right don't seem encouraging.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-17 21:18:35 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-17 20:16:25 | Re: Planning large IN lists |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-17 21:18:35 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-17 20:04:32 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |