Re: PRIMARY KEY on a *group* of columns imply that each

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)nic(dot)fr>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, 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
Date: 2005-04-27 08:10:16
Message-ID: 426F48E8.80205@archonet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 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.

The value of (3,NULL) isn't well-defined. In particular, you can't say
that (3,NULL) = (3,NULL) since NULL means not-known. The fact that part
of the value is not known means the value as a whole is not known.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alban Hertroys 2005-04-27 09:09:17 Re: Performance difference between ANY and IN, also array
Previous Message Hannes Dorbath 2005-04-27 07:59:55 Re: Query Designer