Re: Order-independent multi-field uniqueness constraint?
От | Gregory Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Order-independent multi-field uniqueness constraint? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87odeux0t8.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Order-independent multi-field uniqueness constraint? ("Kynn Jones" <kynnjo@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Order-independent multi-field uniqueness constraint?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"Kynn Jones" <kynnjo@gmail.com> writes: > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION canonicalize( anyelement, anyelement ) > RETURNS anyarray AS > $$ > BEGIN > IF $1 < $2 THEN RETURN ARRAY[ $1, $2 ]; > ELSE RETURN ARRAY[ $2, $1 ]; > END IF; > END; > $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; You need to add IMMUTABLE as well. > and this function works as expected, but when I try to use it in a > constraint I get the error: > > -> ALTER TABLE foo ADD CONSTRAINT foo_uniq_x_y UNIQUE(canonicalize(x,y)); > ERROR: 42601: syntax error at or near "(" > LINE 1: ...E foo ADD CONSTRAINT foo_uniq_x_y UNIQUE(canonicalize(x,y)); What you need is: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_uniq_x_y on foo (canonicalize(x,y)); > LOCATION: base_yyerror, scan.l:795 > > I found this puzzling; it's not clear to me why UNIQUE(UPPER(x)) is OK > syntax but not UNIQUE(my_function(x)). Really? It doesn't work for me in the ADD CONSTRAINT syntax. I don't think you can use the ADD CONSTRAINT syntax, you have to use the CREATE UNIQUE INDEX syntax. It's effectively the same in Postgres anyways. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: