| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, André Hänsel <andre(at)webkr(dot)de>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two constraints with the same name not always allowed |
| Date: | 2018-09-02 17:05:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20180902170511.ibjquzhymvnfvkqs@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018-Sep-02, Tom Lane wrote:
> This also points up the lack of a suitable unique index on pg_constraint.
> It's sort of difficult to figure out what that should look like given that
> pg_constraint contains two quasi-independent collections of constraints,
> but maybe UNIQUE(conrelid,contypid,conname) would serve given the
> reasonable assumption that exactly one of conrelid and contypid is zero.
Hmm ... c.f. 7eca575d1c28. Maybe we should split them out? Are there
reasons to have them together at all?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-02 17:05:42 | Re: BUG #15350: Getting invalid cache ID: 11 Errors |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-02 17:00:45 | Re: Two constraints with the same name not always allowed |