Horton

Re: SQL:2011 application time

Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
To: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-05-12T12:55:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rename gist stratnum support function

  2. Remove support for temporal RESTRICT foreign keys

  3. Cache NO ACTION foreign keys separately from RESTRICT foreign keys

  4. Fix NO ACTION temporal foreign keys when the referenced endpoints change

  5. Improve whitespace in without_overlaps test

  6. Tests for logical replication with temporal keys

  7. Support for GiST in get_equal_strategy_number()

  8. Make the conditions in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() more explicit

  9. Replace get_equal_strategy_number_for_am() by get_equal_strategy_number()

  10. Improve internal logical replication error for missing equality strategy

  11. Simplify IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull()

  12. Fix ALTER TABLE / REPLICA IDENTITY for temporal tables

  13. doc: Update pg_constraint.conexclop docs for WITHOUT OVERLAPS

  14. doc: Add PERIOD to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  15. doc: Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  16. Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints

  17. Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints

  18. Add stratnum GiST support function

  19. Avoid crashing when a JIT-inlined backend function throws an error.

  20. Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys

  21. Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes

  22. Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key

  23. Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests

  24. Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.

  25. Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod

  26. Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree

  27. Add missing TAP test name

  28. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  29. Rename functions to avoid future conflicts

On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 05:26, Paul Jungwirth
<pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/24 17:44, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > I haven't really been following this thread, but after playing around
> > a bit with the feature I feel there are new gaps in error messages. I
> > also think there are gaps in the functionality regarding the (lack of)
> > support for CREATE UNIQUE INDEX, and attaching these indexes to
> > constraints
> Thank you for trying this out and sharing your thoughts! I think these are good points about CREATE
> UNIQUE INDEX and then creating the constraint by handing it an existing index. This is something
> that I am hoping to add, but it's not covered by the SQL:2011 standard, so I think it needs some
> discussion, and I don't think it needs to go into v17.

Okay.

> For instance you are saying:
>
>  > pg=# CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON temporal_testing USING gist (id, valid_during);
>  > ERROR:  access method "gist" does not support unique indexes
>
> To me that error message seems correct. The programmer hasn't said anything about the special
> temporal behavior they are looking for.

But I showed that I had a GIST index that does have the indisunique
flag set, which shows that GIST does support indexes with unique
semantics.

That I can't use CREATE UNIQUE INDEX to create such an index doesn't
mean the feature doesn't exist, which is what the error message
implies.

> To get non-overlapping semantics from an index, this more
> explicit syntax seems better, similar to PKs in the standard:

Yes, agreed on that part.

>  > pg=# CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON temporal_testing USING gist (id, valid_during WITHOUT OVERLAPS);
>  > ERROR:  access method "gist" does not support unique indexes
>
> We could also support *non-temporal* unique GiST indexes, particularly now that we have the stratnum
> support function. Those would use the syntax you gave, omitting WITHOUT OVERLAPS. But that seems
> like a separate effort to me.

No objection on that.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent