Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There seem to be three things we could do:
>> 1. Make ALTER INDEX RENAME fail if the index belongs to a constraint.
>> This is trivial code-wise, but doesn't seem especially helpful to
> +1. IMO, the constraint should be the canonical source of the name,
> not the other way around.
>> 2. Make ALTER INDEX RENAME automatically rename the constraint, too.
>> This would take a few dozen lines of code but is certainly not hard.
> -1 (see above)
> Like I said, I don't think it makes sense for the index to drive
> constraint names.
Maybe not, but as long as psql \d shows indexes rather than constraints,
there'll be an awfully strong bias to use ALTER TABLE/ALTER INDEX
when you decide you don't like the name. I don't see any great
moral failing in allowing things to be renamed either way.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-01-17 21:20:50|
|Subject: Simple thing to make pg_autovacuum more useful|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2008-01-17 20:13:24|
|Subject: Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE|