From: | BillR <iambill(at)williamrosmus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Support for ALTER TABLE ADD UNIQUE/PKEY USING INDEX |
Date: | 2012-03-15 14:30:57 |
Message-ID: | ae4e7681-12dd-4d3a-9155-231ebb40949f@email.android.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Apologies to Guillaume for the duplicate reply, but I didn't hit "reply to all" the first time so didn't actually reply to the list. So here it is again (the first time).
>pgAdmin only shows the constraint. The fact that it's done with an
>index
>is an implementation detail
So creating another index on the column with the 'unique' constraint is redundant I take it. It would seem to me that this "implementation detail" is unnecessarily obscure/confusing. But that is with postgresql, not pgamin. To add to my first reply, I have noticed confusion WRT this from others on the web when trying to gain insight searching the web. So I know it's not just me. If creating another index is redundant, then I suspect there are a lot more redundant indexes out there because of the way this is implemented. But again, that is with Postgresql.
Thanks,
BillR
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Akshay Joshi | 2012-03-15 14:59:24 | Fixed issue "Error Message is displayed when the Package is Clicked" |
Previous Message | Akshay Joshi | 2012-03-15 09:24:31 | Re: pgAdmin 1.15 experiences |