Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: r t <pgsql(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index
Date: 2010-12-05 19:09:31
Message-ID: 1291576171.10677.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On fre, 2010-12-03 at 15:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:56 PM, r t <pgsql(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> > What exactly was the objection to the following -->
> > ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (column_list) USING index_name;
> > Is the objection that you might have been trying to specify a constraint
> > named "using" ? I'm willing to make that option more difficult. :-)
>
> I think it's that someone might expect the word after USING to be the
> name of an index AM.

That could be avoided by writing

USING INDEX <name>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Wultsch 2010-12-05 19:45:17 Re: profiling connection overhead
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-12-05 18:59:13 Re: profiling connection overhead