Prev: unnailing shared relations (was Re: global temporary tables)
Next: [HACKERS] (9.1) btree_gist support for searching on "not equals"
From: Tom Lane on 30 May 2010 10:01
Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja(a)cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
> On 2010-05-30 06:55 +0300, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I've often wished for the ability to constrain a tale to hold just one
>> row, so I don't find that use case implausible at all.

> As I pointed out in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01177.php , you
> can already do that.

Yes. This is NOT about constraining a table to hold only one row.
It's about requiring all its rows to hold the same value (in some
column(s)), without predetermining exactly which value that will be.
I think the use-case for that is really extremely narrow.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 30 May 2010 13:33
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes:
> ... The fact that not very many people will want to do
> something is not a reason to prevent it.

It's not about preventing it for no reason. The proposed patch removes a
significant sanity check from code that still hasn't gotten out of beta.
I might be willing to remove it in 9.1; I am *not* willing to remove it
from 9.0.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: unnailing shared relations (was Re: global temporary tables)
Next: [HACKERS] (9.1) btree_gist support for searching on "not equals"