| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Matt Newell <newellm(at)blur(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint |
| Date: | 2005-11-13 06:15:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4376D9F2.4050807@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Most of the people who have thought about this have figured that the
> right solution involves a single index spanning multiple tables (hence,
> adding a table ID to the index entry headers in such indexes). This
> fixes the lookup and entry problems, but it's not any help for the
> lock-against-schema-mods problem, and it leaves you with a real headache
> if you want to drop just one of the tables.
>
> 'Tis a hard problem :-(
Maybe the solution is to make inherited tables actually the same table,
and jank it with an extra per-row attribute to differentiate them or
something :)
Might make constraint_exclusion less useful then.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2005-11-13 06:46:33 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
| Previous Message | Samer Abukhait | 2005-11-13 05:01:29 | Re: CONNECT BY PRIOR |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2005-11-13 11:52:28 | contrib/xinetops for 8.1 "patch" |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-12 23:21:55 | Re: Add missing const qualifier in ECPG |