On 10/12/14, 2:36 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
On 2014-10-10 19:44, Kevin Grittner wrote:
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.
What about partial indexes? Indexes on expressions or functions calls?
.marko
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
