| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(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 21:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | 87wsm16dvk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"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!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-05-10 21:44:34 | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-05-10 21:30:43 | Re: ecpg localization |