Tom,
> FWIW, I'd go with the unique partial index too. It's a very efficient
> solution. But it's not portable :-(. I'd be interested to hear what
> people would do to solve this problem in bog-standard SQL.
I do it by creating a trigger (on a INSERT or UPDDATE trigger) which call's
a pgsql function.
Not very eficcient but I don't have that many inserts for the tables on a
regular base (100 a day at the max...)
Ries
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org]Namens Tom Lane
> Verzonden: woensdag 7 mei 2003 5:01
> Aan: Randall Lucas
> CC: Michael Teter; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [SQL] UNIQUE boolean: only one row may be "true"
>
>
> Randall Lucas <rlucas@tercent.net> writes:
> > Do you have any suggestions on how this might
> > better be implemented? It seems to me that with a partial
> index, there
> > is not too much overhead and it doesn't seem too offensively
> > un-boycecoddean.
>
> FWIW, I'd go with the unique partial index too. It's a very efficient
> solution. But it's not portable :-(. I'd be interested to hear what
> people would do to solve this problem in bog-standard SQL.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to
> majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
