| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |
| Date: | 2010-12-04 16:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 23884.1291481199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> writes:
> Actually I think I'd even be comfortable with A, either you must name the
> constraint after the index, or you can leave the constraint name out, and
> we'll use the index name.
Or we could omit the "CONSTRAINT name" clause from the syntax
altogether.
I think that allowing the names to be different is a bad idea. That
hasn't been possible in the past and there's no apparent reason why
this feature should suddenly make it possible. We will have problems
with it, for instance failures on name collisions because generated
names are only checked against one catalog or the other.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-04 16:56:35 | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-12-04 16:21:55 | EXPLAIN Sort Method whitespace |