I wrote: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Does the SQL spec actually specify what happens if you provide an >> non-compliant table definition like this?
> It does not. We could accept expressions there, and pray that the SQL > committee never extends the spec syntax in a direction incompatible with > that. That seems like a pretty risky thing to do though. [ remembering previous discussions more clearly... ] Actually there is a concrete problem here: unique constraints are supposed to be represented in the information_schema views, and there is no spec-compliant way to do that for a constraint on something other than a column. We'd have to guess at what the SQL committee would do about that, and the odds of guessing exactly right don't seem encouraging. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings