Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint
Date
Msg-id 4185.1131895708@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint  (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Maybe the solution is to make inherited tables actually the same table, 
> and jank it with an extra per-row attribute to differentiate them or 
> something :)

Aside from destroying the inheritance-for-partitioning stuff, this
wouldn't work for multiple inheritance, so I'm afraid it's not a very
attractive alternative.

Matt's idea about keeping the indexes separate seems that it probably
*would* work, modulo some lingering worries about when to take what kind
of lock on the index-set-as-a-whole.  It seems worth pursuing, anyway.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] prepareThreshold=1 and statement.executeBatch() ??