Primary keys additional

From: "D'Arcy" "J(dot)M(dot)" Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Primary keys additional
Date: 1999-01-26 13:44:56
Message-ID: m1058nY-0000bnC@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

My changes for primary key support weren't quite right. This change
completes the job.

*** ../src.original/./backend/parser/analyze.c Mon Jan 25 23:44:26 1999
--- ./backend/parser/analyze.c Tue Jan 26 08:39:05 1999
***************
*** 714,719 ****
--- 714,720 ----
index = makeNode(IndexStmt);

index->unique = TRUE;
+ index->primary = (constraint->contype == CONSTR_PRIMARY ? TRUE:FALSE);
if (constraint->name != NULL)
index->idxname = constraint->name;
else if (constraint->contype == CONSTR_PRIMARY)
***************
*** 722,735 ****
elog(ERROR, "CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY multiple keys for table %s are not legal", stmt->relname);

have_pkey = TRUE;
- index->primary = TRUE;
index->idxname = makeTableName(stmt->relname, "pkey", NULL);
}
else
- {
- index->primary = FALSE;
index->idxname = NULL;
- }

index->relname = stmt->relname;
index->accessMethod = "btree";
--- 723,732 ----
*** ../src.original/./backend/tcop/utility.c Mon Jan 25 23:40:17 1999
--- ./backend/tcop/utility.c Mon Jan 25 23:40:34 1999
***************
*** 404,410 ****
stmt->indexParams, /* parameters */
stmt->withClause,
stmt->unique,
! 0, /* CREATE INDEX can't be primary */
(Expr *) stmt->whereClause,
stmt->rangetable);
}
--- 404,410 ----
stmt->indexParams, /* parameters */
stmt->withClause,
stmt->unique,
! stmt->primary,
(Expr *) stmt->whereClause,
stmt->rangetable);
}

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 1999-01-26 14:12:46 Re: [HACKERS] Primary keys additional
Previous Message Oleg Broytmann 1999-01-26 10:51:05 Re: [HACKERS] Re: datetime regress test busted by incomplete checkin