On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> We are not going to try to enforce uniqueness. This has been debated >>> before, and most people like the current behavior just fine, or at least >>> better than the alternatives. > >> Really? I thought the issue was that no one had figured out how to do >> it, or that no one had written the patch, not that anyone thought the >> current behavior was particularly desirable. What happens if you say >> ALTER TABLE .. DROP CONSTRAINT or COMMENT ON CONSTRAINT? You just >> pick one at random? > > No, because those syntaxes constrain the choice to one single > constraint. Perhaps if the SQL committee had designed 'em, > there'd be an issue; but they are Postgres-isms.
Hrm. I was thinking of this old thread, but maybe that's not the same issue. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-10/msg00256.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
