Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
My point was that Oracle has added a
We are already in a features freeze period, or not ?
This isn't a feature, it's a bug...
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Also, since I checked and it seems that our syntax for putting tables an
d indexes in tablespaces at creation time is identical to oracle's,
perhaps we should copy them on constraints as well.
Since we're getting close to beta, can we have consensus on what I'm to
do about this?
The
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Also, since I checked and it seems that our syntax for putting
tables an d indexes in tablespaces at creation time is identical to
oracle's, perhaps we should copy them on constraints as well.
Since we're getting close to beta, can we have consensus on what
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
ALTER TABLE test ADD PRIMARY KEY (a) TABLESPACE foo;
ALTER TABLE test ADD UNIQUE (a) TABLESPACE foo;
CREATE TABLE test (a INTEGER PRIMARY KEY TABLESPACE foo);
CREATE TABLE test (a INTEGER UNIQUE TABLESPACE foo);
This is needed since we can
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
regards, tom lane
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
No, I've already done it and it works just fine. What is your
suggestion then? Just assume the name of the index it will get?
Also, I realised that the pg_get_serial_sequence()
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
CONSTRAINT PK_Stock PRIMARY KEY (Company) USING INDEX TABLESPACE
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
This suggests a slightly different oracle syntax. I guess the word
'index' is optional.
Since we stole tablespaces from Oracle, maybe we should make them work
the same?
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
CONSTRAINT
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
My point was that Oracle has added a tablespace clause to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
