Re: How to union tables and have a field with UNIQUE constraint?
От | Stephan Szabo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How to union tables and have a field with UNIQUE constraint? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020103134126.Y14151-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How to union tables and have a field with UNIQUE constraint? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: How to union tables and have a field with UNIQUE constraint?
|
Список | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes: > > I assume you want to reference id, so you'd need to do something like: > > > CREATE UNIQUE INDEX t_id_key ON t(id); > > Do we allow that (defining an index on a view)? [ tries it ] > Apparently so :-( > > I would argue that this should be disallowed, since it does not do > anything useful and can only mislead people into thinking that it > has some effect. Yeah, I was surprised that it let me do it as well. > > This is a hacky sort of way to do it (we allow you to make the internal > > form that a unique constraint has via create index even on views which > > I don't believe would ever be used :( ) and may not continue working > > forever. > > Since triggers on a view won't do anything either, I don't see how one > could expect REFERENCES to a view to work. The system ought to reject > all this stuff as unimplemented. I think that the insert/update on the fk table will work, but yeah, the parts on the pk table won't, so that's no good. I wouldn't want to bother for 7.2, but putting in something to make it so you can't reference a view is probably a good idea, at least until we can work out a way to make constraints on views work.
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: