UNIQUE constraints have this behaviour. It is explained in the section:
Non-Deferred Uniqueness Constraints
When a UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY constraint is not deferrable, PostgreSQL checks
for uniqueness immediately whenever a row is inserted or modified. The SQL
standard says that uniqueness should
all relations within the same schema.
So, adding two index-based constraints (UNIQUE or PK or EXCLUDE) with same
name fails, whether they are in the same table or different ones in the
same schema.
Adding two constraints (whatever type) with same name in the same table
fails.
Adding two or more constraints with same name in different tables of the
same schema succeeds as long as none or only one is index-based.
Best regards,
Pantelis Theodosiou
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:43 AM Pantelis Theodosiou
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:53 AM David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 30, 2021, David G. Johnston
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 30, 20
u need a comma
between the 2nd and 3rd.
It's common to see [, parameter ] in function definitions. Look in text
functions for many similar examples.
Best regards,
Pantelis Theodosiou
there is no guarantee. It's just that UNION ALL works this way today
(preserving the order of the subselects) - and I'm not even sure about
that, it may not preserve the order in all cases, with different indexes or
partitioning or a parallel plan, etc.
In any case, there is
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 3:50 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:01:45PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> > On 6/22/23 9:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Michael Paquier writes:
> > > > "With multiple decades of development behind it, PostgreSQL.."
> > >
> > > +1. It sure seems silly
The CREATE TABLE page has this explanation, about FROM and TO in
partitioning declarations:
> When creating a range partition, the lower bound specified with FROM is
an inclusive bound, whereas the upper bound specified with TO is an
exclusive bound. That is, the values specified in the FROM list
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> PG Doc comments form wrote:
>
> > create table t(x int);
> > create table u(x int);
> >
> > insert into t values (1), (2), (2), (3), (3);
> > insert into u values (1), (2);
> >
> > select * from t except all select * fr
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Pantelis Theodosiou
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
>> PG Doc comments form wrote:
>>
>> > create table t(x int);
>> > create table u(x int);
>> >
Your link is for an old version of Postgres (8.3). Current version is 10.
You can find the link for the relaive page easily, it's on the top of the
page, if you use a different version that 10 (I hope you are not still at
8.3 !)
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auth-pg-hba-conf.html
I guess no one noticed this (for almost a year!) but I keep wondering
whether it would be worth adding a note in the docs about the different
behaviour or perhaps it's a bug that should be addressed.
Should I post it to the bugs list?
Best regards,
Pantelis Theodosiou
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:42 PM PG Doc comments form
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-createschema.html
> Description:
>
> The second and forth syntax for CREATE SCHEMA is missing schema_name.
>
Right. It
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:43 PM Pantelis Theodosiou
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:42 PM PG Doc comments form <
> nore...@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Page: https://www.postg
general ?
Best regards
Pantelis Theodosiou
Hi, I didn't think of including you in this suggestion.
Or the pdsql-docs was not the right list to post? I didn't want to mix it
with the GROUP BY DISTINCT patch.
Please check my suggestion.
Best regards
Pantelis Theodosiou
-- Forwarded message -----
From: Pantelis
15 matches
Mail list logo
