On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 23:35 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On ons, 2011-07-13 at 11:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Our standard reason for not implementing UNIQUE constraints on >> > expressions has been that then you would have a thing that claims to be >> > a UNIQUE constraint but isn't representable in the information_schema >> > views that are supposed to show UNIQUE constraints. We avoid this >> > objection in the current design by shoving all that functionality into >> > EXCLUDE constraints, which are clearly outside the scope of the spec. >> >> I have never heard that reason before, and I think it's a pretty poor >> one. There are a lot of other things that are not representable in the >> information schema.
+1. > I think what Tom is saying is that the information_schema might appear > inconsistent to someone following the spec. > > Can you give another example where we do something like that? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-08/msg00374.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
