From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ragnar <gnari(at)hive(dot)is>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Online index builds |
Date: | 2006-12-07 23:34:16 |
Message-ID: | 1165534456.2048.235.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general pgsql-www |
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > I think all you need to do what you want is something like:
> > ALTER TABLE foo DROP CONSTRAINT foo_pkey KEEP INDEX;
>
> > Because then you could drop the primary key status on a column without
> > affecting the column or the index, then use my suggested syntax to
> > switch the primary key status to a different index like so:
> > ALTER TABLE foo SET PRIMARY KEY INDEX foo_othercolumn_index;
>
> That seems like an awful lot of uglification simply to let the index be
> marked as "primary key" rather than just "unique".
>
Agreed. It's just a thought.
The reason it came to my mind is because some applications, like Slony,
use the primary key by default.
After reading through the archives, it looks like Gregory Stark
suggested a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, which would certainly solve the
awkwardness of maintenance on a primary key. I didn't see much
objection, maybe it's worth consideration for 8.3?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 23:51:40 | Re: Online index builds |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 23:11:02 | Re: Online index builds |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | greg | 2006-12-07 23:44:35 | porting time calcs to PG |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 23:19:14 | Re: SET statement_timeout |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 23:51:40 | Re: Online index builds |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-07 23:11:02 | Re: Online index builds |