From: | Colin Strickland <cms(at)sift(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | CREATE TABLE .. PRIMARY KEY quirk |
Date: | 2001-07-04 13:28:46 |
Message-ID: | 200107041328.f64DSkR01802@mongoose.office.sift.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Issuing the following ( admittedly bogus ) statement against 7.1.1
CREATE TABLE dir_suppliers_var_prodtype (
dir_suppliers_var_prodtype_id INTEGER ,
dir_suppliers_var_id integer DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL,
prodtype_id smallint DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY
(dir_suppliers_var_prodtype_id,dir_suppliers_var_prodtype_id)
);
gives the following , initially slightly cryptic response.
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index
'dir_suppliers_var_prodtype_pkey' for table 'dir_suppliers_var_prodtype'
ERROR: Cannot insert a duplicate key into unique index
pg_attribute_relid_attnam_index
This is obviously because of the broken primary key definition.
My question is, should this not raise a parser error ? It took me a
little while to actually spot the problem with the users statement.
--
Colin M Strickland perl -e'print "\n",map{chr(ord()-3)}(reverse split
//,"\015%vhlwlqxpprF#ir#uhzrS#hkw#jqlvvhqudK%#\015\015nx".
"1rf1wilv1zzz22=swwk###369<#84<#:44#77.={di##339<#84<#:44#77.=ohw\015]".
"K9#4VE#/ORWVLUE#/whhuwV#dlurwflY#334#/wilV\015uhsrohyhG#ehZ#urlqhV");'
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michel Soto | 2001-07-04 14:30:18 | Strange query execution time |
Previous Message | Damien Clermonté | 2001-07-04 12:51:49 | Re: [PATCH] Patch to make pg_hba.conf handle virtualhost access control and samehost keyword |