From: | Tod McQuillin <devin(at)spamcop(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ryan Ho <ryanho(at)pacific(dot)net(dot)sg>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recreating unique index for primary key |
Date: | 2001-09-29 15:26:07 |
Message-ID: | 20010930002004.C11516-100000@glass.pun-pun.prv |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX is fine as far as the database goes. Offhand it
> looks like the only extra thing a primary-key marker does is to define
> the default reference column for subsequent foreign-key references
> pointing at your table.
>
> If you want, you can reach into pg_index and set the indisprimary field
> after creating the index:
I stand corrected; there *is* something in the index itself which marks it
primary.
I'd guess that since the only time 'REFERENCES' is seen is when creating a
new table (and translated into hard-coded triggers after that), you should
be fine until you create a new table referencing the table whose primary
index you removed.
It's an inconsistency I would not feel comfortable with, so I'm glad I
learned about indisprimary. Is this documented anywhere?
--
Tod McQuillin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tod McQuillin | 2001-09-29 15:29:02 | Re: Recreating unique index for primary key |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-29 14:48:30 | Re: Encoding passwords |