| From: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, 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 20:38:12 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik8ra-2N9ftS=J3ZYkV5uhjBuk8Uko=7ou-eiPG@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the end I think this is mainly an issue of setting appropriate
> expectations in the documentation. I've added the following text to
> the ALTER TABLE manual page:
>
> <para>
> After this command is executed, the index is <quote>owned</> by the
> constraint, in the same way as if the index had been built by
> a regular <literal>ADD PRIMARY KEY</> or <literal>ADD UNIQUE</>
> command. In particular, dropping the constraint will make the index
> disappear too.
> </para>
>
I'd change that last sentence to:
... dropping the constraint will drop the index too.
'disappear' doesn't seem accurate in the context.
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-01-25 20:41:18 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-25 20:31:59 | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |