From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Date: | 2010-07-26 16:46:32 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim=zwB=yZFKrgO6LMPaECLqDm0kvryz1rxS_zk2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:23, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Another open question I thought of was whether we should put the
> dependency record on the pg_index row, or the pg_constraint row, or
> perhaps the pg_class row. Right now, it is using pg_index, because that
> was easiest to code up, but I suspect that once we have not-null
> constraints in pg_constraint, it will be more consistent to make all
> dependencies go against pg_constraint rather than a mix of several
> catalogs.
I think for primary keys pg_index is OK. However for the not-null
case we have to use pg_constraint... So given that we end up having to
code that anyways, it seems like it will end up being
cleaner/consistent to always use the pg_constraint row(s). So +1 for
using pg_constraint instead of pg_index from me.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-07-26 16:51:04 | Re: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory |
Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-07-26 16:34:07 | Re: dynamically allocating chunks from shared memory |