On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:23:15PM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> > If they include indexes and not constraints, I think we should
> > follow the same policy as unique constraints, and create the index
> > and the constraint.
> > The behavior seems a little strange to me, but that's the current
> > behavior for unique indexes.
> This may be an opportunity to fix it.
> The current behaviour seems to be predicated on the unique
> constraint being an integral part of the index itself. While this
> might be true from a system catalog point of view
> (pg_index.indisunique), if a user says that they want to copy a
> table's structure INCLUDING INDEXES EXCLUDING CONSTRAINTS then IMO
> they've made their intention perfectly clear. They'd expect it to
> create an index sans the unique constraint. Ignoring the user's
> intention and copying the index as-is (including the unique
> constraint) would be unfriendly.
> Unless the SQL spec demands that we do so?
SQL:2008, like its predecessors, does not mention indexing at all.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2009-08-22 19:18:39|
|Subject: Re: Resjunk sort columns, Heikki's index-only quals patch,
and bug #5000|
|Previous:||From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram||Date: 2009-08-22 18:51:21|
|Subject: Re: Lazy Snapshots|