> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, what do people want to do with this item? Add to TODO list?
> >
> > Seems making a separat unique constraint would be easy to do and be of
> > value to most users.
>
> The problem is that doing that will pretty much guarantee that we won't
> be doing foreign keys to inheritance trees without changing that behavior
> and we've seen people asking about adding that too. I think that this
> falls into the general category of "Make inheritance make sense" (Now
> there's a todo item :) ) Seriously, I think the work on how inheritance
> is going to work will decide this, maybe we end up with a real inheritance
> tree system and something that works like the current stuff in which case
> I'd say it's probably one unique for the former and one per for the
> latter.
I smell TODO item. In fact, I now see a TODO item:
* Unique index on base column not honored on inserts from inherited table INSERT INTO inherit_table (unique_index_col)
VALUES(dup) should fail [inherit]
So it seems the fact the UNIQUE doesn't apply to the new table is just a
manifestion of the fact that people expect UNIQUE to span the entire
inheritance tree. I will add the emails to [inherit] and mark it as
resolved.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026