|From:||Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>|
|To:||"Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well it should be optional but it would be nice if we had the option
>>> to have it renamed per the default... meaning the same output if I
>>> were to do this:
>> If you want that, you can rename the index (either before or afterwards).
>> I don't see any reason to clutter the make-constraint-from-index command
>> with questions of renaming.
> As a counter point, I don't see any reason to make the DBA's life
> harder. Sure it is just one step but it is a human step, prone to error
> and taking more time than it should. Why not just make it easy?
> Especially when the easy isn't sacrificing data integrity or quality of
well the name is by no means a functional problem. Its merely cosmetics,
so if you want propose that a warning is issued to suggest a saner name.
This should be sufficient I think.
|Next Message||Hans-Juergen Schoenig||2008-05-11 09:53:04||posix advises ...|
|Previous Message||Martijn van Oosterhout||2008-05-11 09:12:52||Re: another ecpg crash|