| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Anna Akenteva <a(dot)akenteva(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Change a constraint's index - ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT ... USING INDEX ... |
| Date: | 2020-07-06 22:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1473360.1594073334@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-Jul-05, Anna Akenteva wrote:
>> -- Swapping primary key's index for an equivalent index,
>> -- but with INCLUDE-d attributes.
>> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX new_idx ON target_tbl (id) INCLUDE (info);
>> ALTER TABLE target_tbl ALTER CONSTRAINT target_tbl_pkey USING INDEX
>> new_idx;
>> ALTER TABLE referencing_tbl ALTER CONSTRAINT referencing_tbl_id_ref_fkey
>> USING INDEX new_idx;
> How is this state represented by pg_dump?
Even if it's possible to represent, I think we should flat out reject
this "feature". Primary keys that aren't primary keys don't seem like
a good idea. For one thing, it won't be possible to describe the
constraint accurately in the information_schema.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Soumyadeep Chakraborty | 2020-07-06 22:45:23 | Re: posgres 12 bug (partitioned table) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-07-06 21:47:35 | Re: Change a constraint's index - ALTER TABLE ... ALTER CONSTRAINT ... USING INDEX ... |