| 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 |
| Date: | 2008-05-11 09:13:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4826B8A1.9070504@wildenhain.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
> product?
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.
T.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |