| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Misa Simic <misa(dot)simic(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz <postgresql4(at)numerixtechnology(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unique across two tables |
| Date: | 2011-06-22 16:06:46 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikEi2Rxkck=zawZQ8Zz24qdZY3aOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:34 AM, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Your statement is utterly false simply by virtue of the documentation.
>
>
>
> Inserts never propagate to other tables in a hierarchy
>
> Indexes/Constraints only apply to individual tables
>
>
>
> Since inserts do not propagate the base table never sees the records and
> thus the index on the base table cannot enforce uniqueness.
>
>
>
> Other caveats and restrictions to the current inheritance implementation can
> be found in section 5.8 (Inheritance) of the documentation. It is in the
> “Data Definition” chapter.
yeah -- postgresql table inheritance is completely useless for doing
what most people instinctively want it to do...it's a half implemented
kludge that dates back forever. however, it does have a few quirky
neat uses and also underpins the table inheritance feature so we're
stuck with the current behavior.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2011-06-22 16:27:43 | Re: building 9.1 on suse-11.4 (64bit) |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-22 15:58:50 | Re: data compression in protocol? |