| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dump/Restore of non-default PKs |
| Date: | 2022-08-01 16:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-Fq8JmAdSE4jsBU-wd1vj6aZuQKGm_9JqwD=S5DeoGmvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 15:09, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 22.04.22 16:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That analogy would be compelling if exclusion constraints were a
> > SQL-standard feature; but they aren't so their clause syntax is
> > fully under our control. The scenario that worries me is that
> > somewhere down the pike, the SQL committee might extend the
> > syntax of PKEY/UNIQUE constraint clauses in a way that breaks
> > our nonstandard extensions of them.
>
> Some syntax like
>
> PRIMARY KEY (x, y) USING ACCESS METHOD hash
>
> should be able to avoid any future clashes.
That seems to conflict with USING INDEX TABLESPACE. I've tried a few
things but have not found anything yet.
Any other ideas on syntax?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Önder Kalacı | 2022-08-01 16:21:48 | Re: [PATCH] Use indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is full on the publisher |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-08-01 15:51:05 | Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Waiting on Author |