On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:14:43PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> Uniqueness is currently perfectly practical, when the unique index
> contains
> the column[s] that is/are used in a non overlapping partitioning scheme.
Well, yes, assuming you have no bugs. Part of the reason I want the
database to handle this for me is because, where I've come from, the only
thing I can be sure of is that there will be bugs. There'll even be bugs
before there is running code. One bug I can easily imagine is that the
non-overlapping partitioning scheme has a bug in it, such that it turns out
there _is_ an overlap some time.
All of that said, I agree with you, particularly about the alternative ways
things can suck instead :-/
A
