| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
| Date: | 2009-07-28 00:15:55 |
| Message-ID: | 27719.1248740155@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (thinks...) Actually, u for unique might be a poor choice if Jeff's
>> patch goes in and starts using it for things that aren't exactly
>> unique indexes. Should it be just conindid?
> My thoughts exactly.
On looking closer, it appears we should populate this column for FKEY
constraints too --- for example this would greatly simplify some
of the information_schema views (cf _pg_underlying_index).
Now those references will also point at unique indexes, but still this
seems like another reason to use a relatively generic column name.
conindid it is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-28 00:19:44 | Re: When is a record NULL? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-28 00:14:23 | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |