Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key
Date: 2008-04-09 01:04:11
Message-ID: 10889.1207703051@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily
> assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key.

You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported
assertion. There's hardly any effective difference between a unique
index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what
did you really need it for?

> 1. Verify that the index named is a unique index

... and not partial, and not on expressions, and not invalid, and not
using non-default opclasses (which might have a surprising definition of
"equal"), and not already owned by a constraint ... not to mention that
it'd better be an index on the named table, which among other things
removes the need for a schema specification on the index name.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2008-04-09 01:07:44 Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-04-09 01:03:49 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres"