X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF7BD1B468 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:45:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73658-08 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:44:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from sharp.noc24x7.com (unknown [69.56.128.138]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530A3D1B44C for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:44:17 -0400 (AST) Received: from [61.1.218.166] (helo=thenilgiris.com) by sharp.noc24x7.com with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AeSxp-0001vg-SP; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:14:14 +0530 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by thenilgiris.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id i084KM500985; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:50:22 +0530 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Kenneth Gonsalves To: Michael Fuhr Subject: Re: unique constraints Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:50:22 +0530 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <0401071947320T.02497@thenilgiris.com> <20040107103147.A11576@quality.qadas.com> In-Reply-To: <20040107103147.A11576@quality.qadas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0401080950220V.02497@thenilgiris.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sharp.noc24x7.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - thenilgiris.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200401/44 X-Sequence-Number: 16437 On Wednesday 07 January 2004 23:01, Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:47:32PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > > in 7.4 i'm getting an error message - UNIQUE constraint matching keys for > > table 'xxx' not found - any clues? > > It would be helpful to see the *exact* wording of the error message and > the SQL statements that can be used to reproduce the error. ok, got it now - the key in question was a 'serial' key. in older versions of postgres, since serial keys are anyway unique, apparently we could get away with not explicitly giving an unique constraint - sigh, a lot of work lies ahead ... -- regards kg http://www.ootygolfclub.org poor man's tally: http://avsap.sourceforge.net