David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There's no need for a new error message I think, because we should just
ignore such indexes. After all, there might be a valid matching index
later on.
hmm, but if the user attempts
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
I wasn't quite sure if it was possible to include the same column twice in
a foreign key, so I tested
create table r1 (a int);
create table r2 (b int);
create unique index on r2(b,b);
alter table r1 add constraint r2_b_fkey foreign key (a,a)
I wrote:
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
The attached seems to fix the problem, but the whole thing makes me wonder
if this is even meant to be allowed? I was thinking that this might be a
good time to disallow this altogether, since it's already broken and looks
like it has been
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I'm thinking you're right: we should rewrite this code so that only
indexes having all columns distinct can match, thereby ensuring that there
is only one possible interpretation of the equality semantics for the
foreign
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I'm thinking you're right: we should rewrite this code so that only
indexes having all columns distinct can match, thereby ensuring that there
is only one possible interpretation of
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I'm thinking you're right: we should rewrite this code so that only
indexes having all columns distinct can
