Re: [GENERAL] child table doesn't inherit PRIMARY KEY?

> 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