On 2014-10-10 19:44, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> People keep remarking that they don't like that you can (optionally) >> name a unique index explicitly,
[...] > To restate: to do so is conflating the logical definition of the > database with a particular implementation detail. As just one > reason that is a bad idea: we can look up unique indexes on the > specified columns, but if we implement a other storage techniques > where there is no such thing as a unique index on the columns, yet > manage to duplicate the semantics (yes, stranger things have > happened), people can't migrate to the new structure without > rewriting their queries Wouldn't it be good enough to define the 'WITHIN' as expecting a unique-constraint name rather than an index name (even though those happen to be the same strings)? I think constraints are part of the logical definition of the database, and a new storage technique which doesn't use indexes should still have names for its unique constraints. -M- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
