From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
Date: | 2000-02-29 00:04:56 |
Message-ID: | 38BB0D28.79B06301@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 10:20 AM 2/28/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> >>> "update t set id=id+1" is also a 2x space,
> >
> >> And PG doesn't do it correctly anyway...
> >
> >? News to me. What's your definition of "correctly"?
>
> create table foo(i integer unique);
>
> (insert values)
>
> donb=# select * from foo;
> i
> ---
> 1
> 2
> 3
> (3 rows)
>
> donb=# update foo set i=i+1;
> ERROR: Cannot insert a duplicate key into unique index foo_pkey
I knew it used to misbehave that way, but at some point I got the
impression that it was fixed ;(
IIRC, the same behaviour plagued the old foreign key implementation
in contrib, which was why it was refused for a long time to be
integrated.
I hope that at least the foreig keys don't do it anymore.
---------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-29 00:16:15 | Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-28 23:30:26 | Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ? |