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

Reply via email to