Scott Marlowe wrote: > No, I wouldn't think one to one would be necessary. If you had a > primary key that was case insensitive, for example, it would not map > one to one. It would, in fact, be MORE greedy about matching, so > that you could not have both a "Peter Eisentraut" and a "peter > eisentraut" in the same table. I suppose one could define equivalence classes that way, and if everything else that interacted with the table (foreign keys, other functions, etc.) behaved consistently with respect to those equivalence classes, things would work out. Lots of "if's" though. The better and safer way to do that, however, would be to define a data type. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
