Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY
От | Alex Hunsaker |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTim=zwB=yZFKrgO6LMPaECLqDm0kvryz1rxS_zk2@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:23, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > Another open question I thought of was whether we should put the > dependency record on the pg_index row, or the pg_constraint row, or > perhaps the pg_class row. Right now, it is using pg_index, because that > was easiest to code up, but I suspect that once we have not-null > constraints in pg_constraint, it will be more consistent to make all > dependencies go against pg_constraint rather than a mix of several > catalogs. I think for primary keys pg_index is OK. However for the not-null case we have to use pg_constraint... So given that we end up having to code that anyways, it seems like it will end up being cleaner/consistent to always use the pg_constraint row(s). So +1 for using pg_constraint instead of pg_index from me.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: