On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 04:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> That was my first reaction too, but the point about unique-index behavior > >> refutes it. Constraining a table to have at most one row is useful. > > > Sure is, and I've done it just a few days ago. > > > This SQL does it using standard syntax: > > > create table foo (handle integer primary key check (handle = 1)); > > That does not constrain the table to have only one row. It constrains > it to have only one value of the handle field (thereby making the field > useless).
It works, sure you need another column to put data in. > The fact that there are workarounds isn't a reason to not > support the index option. The above is not a workaround. It is the SQL Standard way of solving the problem, so why support another non-standard way? Constants in indexes are just a strangeness we don't need. Supporting weird syntax because one person wants it has never been anything you've advocated before, so I'm surprised to see that argument deployed here. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
