From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: child table doesn't inherit PRIMARY KEY? |
Date: | 2001-01-19 17:37:02 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0101190932480.5520-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Probably, since I see it in near recent sources (and it affects
UNIQUE as well. As I remember it, the last discussion on this couldn't
determine what the correct behavior for unique/primary key constraints
was in the inheritance case (is it a single unique hierarchy through
all the tables [would be needed for fk to inheritance trees] or
separate unique constraints for each table [which would be similar
to how many people seem to currently use postgres inheritance as a
shortcut]).
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Does this bug still exist?
>
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > Louis-David Mitterrand writes:
> >
> > > When creating a child (through CREATE TABLE ... INHERIT (parent)) it
> > > seems the child gets all of the parent's contraints _except_ its PRIMARY
> > > KEY. Is this normal?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-20 00:04:58 | Re: Memory leak in lobj example code |
Previous Message | Cedar Cox | 2001-01-19 11:41:20 | Re: [INTERFACES] pl/pgSQL & transaction |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-01-19 17:48:58 | Re: Performance-Tuning |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-19 17:22:57 | Re: MD5 hash function for PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-19 17:45:49 | Re: Possible performance improvement: buffer replacement policy |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-19 17:25:18 | Re: Small patch to replace 'idle' by 'trans' if transaction is still open |