From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
Date: | 2008-05-10 21:44:34 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920805101444l632ee2a2g5c6cc85ed4b8292a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, I just think PREBUILT conveys the meaning of the command more
appropriately. I could care less though.
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> So, would anyone be averse to something like the following:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE blah ADD ... PRIMARY KEY (...) USING PREBUILT INDEX index_hame
>>
>> If the user doesn't specify CONSTRAINT constraint_name, it will
>> default to current implicit behavior of col_pkey.
>
> This is all so that the primary key shows up with a nice "PRIMARY KEY" instead
> of just the unique index?
>
> The "PREBUILT" seems unnecessary in that syntax.
>
> --
> Gregory Stark
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
>
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah(dot)harris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-05-10 22:48:23 | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-05-10 21:35:59 | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |