| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, r t <pgsql(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |
| Date: | 2010-12-09 19:48:48 |
| Message-ID: | 10915.1291924128@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But I still hold a bias towards renaming the index to match constraint name
> (with a NOTICE), rather than require that the constraint name match the
> index name, because the constraint name is optional and when it is not
> provided system has to generate a name and we have to rename the index
> anyway to maintain consistency.
No. If the constraint name is not specified, we should certainly use
the existing index name, not randomly rename it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-09 19:51:58 | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |
| Previous Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-12-09 18:24:21 | Extended query protocol and exact types matches. |