From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <29605.1284266432@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin1vvc2Yfs3mBnmL_yCq3KRuMbo4zzGihsNcuQZ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008311337530.2449@localhost.localdomain>
<2683.1283266019@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<AANLkTin1vvc2Yfs3mBnmL_yCq3KRuMbo4zzGihsNcuQZ@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We are not going to try to enforce uniqueness. This has been debated
>> before, and most people like the current behavior just fine, or at least
>> better than the alternatives.
> Really? I thought the issue was that no one had figured out how to do
> it, or that no one had written the patch, not that anyone thought the
> current behavior was particularly desirable. What happens if you say
> ALTER TABLE .. DROP CONSTRAINT or COMMENT ON CONSTRAINT? You just
> pick one at random?
No, because those syntaxes constrain the choice to one single
constraint. Perhaps if the SQL committee had designed 'em,
there'd be an issue; but they are Postgres-isms.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS
In-Reply-To: <29605.1284266432@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox