| From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Trevor Hardcastle" <chizu(at)spicious(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| Date: | 2007-06-03 14:02:58 |
| Message-ID: | d3c4af540706030702o47fd9745i67f13f78e689d7a8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hi,
On 6/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Attached is a revised version of this patch.
>
> This still seems to fundamentally misunderstand the difference between
> an index and a constraint. IMHO it should not be examining pg_index
> (or specifically, the index Relations) at all.
But as you had mentioned earlier, if we look at index entries as part of the
implementation of "unique" or "primary key" pg_constraint entries, then
examining pg_index is required, right?
Anyways, this patch and the functionality introduced herein will be useful
in the "CREATE .. INCLUDING INDEXES" case too.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-03 14:48:21 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-06-03 13:57:15 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-03 14:48:21 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-06-03 13:57:15 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |