| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, r t <pgsql(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |
| Date: | 2011-01-25 17:59:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4d3f0f8a.a21fec0a.5176.31f7@mx.google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:01:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> One other issue that might be worthy of discussion is that as things
> stand, execution of the ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX syntax will cause
> the constraint to absorb the index as an INTERNAL dependency. That
> means dropping the constraint would make the index go away silently ---
> it no longer has any separate life. If the intent is just to provide a
> way to get the effect of ALTER ADD PRIMARY KEY CONCURRENTLY, then this
> behavior is probably fine. But someone who believes DROP CONSTRAINT
> exactly reverses the effects of ADD CONSTRAINT might be surprised.
> Comments?
So you'd manually create an index, attach it to a constraint, drop the
constraint, and find that the index had disappeared? ISTM since you created
the index explicitly, you should have to drop it explicitly as well.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2011-01-25 18:16:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-01-25 17:57:09 | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |