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

Sorry for not being on top of this.

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > ... If that's the only issue then I don't see any need to wait on
> > the author, so will take this one.
>
> I find myself quite dissatisfied with the way that this patch adds yet
> another bool flag to index_create (which has too many of those already),
> with the effect of causing it to exactly *not* do an index creation.
> That's a clear violation of the principle of least astonishment IMNSHO.
> I think what's needed here is to refactor things a bit so that the
> constraint-creation code is pulled out of index_create and called
> separately where needed. Hacking on that now.
>

Thanks.

One other issue that might be worthy of discussion is that as things
> stand, execution of the ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX syntax will cause
> the constraint to absorb the index as an INTERNAL dependency. That
> means dropping the constraint would make the index go away silently ---
> it no longer has any separate life. If the intent is just to provide a
> way to get the effect of ALTER ADD PRIMARY KEY CONCURRENTLY, then this
> behavior is probably fine. But someone who believes DROP CONSTRAINT
> exactly reverses the effects of ADD CONSTRAINT might be surprised.
> Comments?
>

Since we rename the index automatically to match the constraint name,
implying that the index now belongs to the system, I think the user should
expect the index to go away with the constraint; else we have to remember
index's original name and restore that name on DROP CONSTRAINT, which IMHO
will be even more unintuitive.

Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device