Re: PRIMARY KEY on a *group* of columns imply that each column is NOT

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)nic(dot)fr>
To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)nic(dot)fr>, Guy Rouillier <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PRIMARY KEY on a *group* of columns imply that each column is NOT
Date: 2005-04-27 07:12:11
Message-ID: 20050427071211.GA1436@nic.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:48:44PM -0500,
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:

> Here's a quote from the SQL1992 spec that's VERY clear:

Yes, PostgreSQL is right and implement the standard. Now, what's the
rationale for the standard? I understand it for a single column but,
for several columns, it should be still possible to have different
tuples, such as (3, NULL) and (5, NULL) for instance.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Barham 2005-04-27 07:28:18 Why sequential scan for currval?
Previous Message Typing80wpm 2005-04-27 07:06:24 free WINDOWS rekall?