From: | "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
Date: | 2008-04-10 05:58:05 |
Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0804092258s860bfeetbaab8fc78d0c0223@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily
> > > assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key.
> >
> > You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported
> > assertion. There's hardly any effective difference between a unique
> > index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what
> > did you really need it for?
>
> Agreed, functionally there's not much of a difference. It's more of a
> matter of proper design identifying a primary key.
>
set right constraints it's good for documenting the system itself, i
like the idea...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-10 06:34:45 | Re: Index AM change proposals, redux |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-04-10 05:52:57 | Re: Commit fest queue |