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
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" |