From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Felix Kater <fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: are foreign keys realized as indexes? |
Date: | 2007-05-09 14:39:25 |
Message-ID: | 26668.1178721565@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Felix Kater <fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:54:08 +0200
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
>> A unique index is not a "substitute" for a unique constraint, they're
>> exactly the same thing.
> Yes. For this reason I didn't have to implement *both* 'unique
> constraints' *and* 'unique indices' in my pg interface.
If you are trying to get away with a dumbed-down subset of SQL, be
prepared for people to refuse to use your tool ;-).
You have to support the unique-constraint syntax because the SQL spec
says so (and people are used to it), and you have to support the
create-index syntax because it gives access to functionality not
available through the constraint syntax. Unique indexes on expressions
for instance.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-05-09 14:42:49 | Re: In theory question |
Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2007-05-09 14:26:52 | Re: Dangers of fsync = off |