From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
Date: | 2009-08-21 01:49:07 |
Message-ID: | 1250819347.10782.1284.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 11:14 +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> As an aside, Jeff, have you considered how this feature would interact
> with CREATE TABLE ... LIKE parent_table [ { INCLUDING | EXCLUDING } {
> DEFAULTS | CONSTRAINTS | INDEXES } ] ... }? What if someone asks to
> include indexes but not constraints? Vice-versa? Will these cases be
> handled gracefully?
I hadn't considered that yet, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
>From the docs on CREATE TABLE (... LIKE ...):
"Not-null constraints are always copied to the new table. CHECK
constraints will only be copied if INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS is specified;
other types of constraints will never be copied."
If they include constraints and not indexes, nothing special.
If they include indexes and not constraints, I think we should follow
the same policy as unique constraints, and create the index and the
constraint.
The behavior seems a little strange to me, but that's the current
behavior for unique indexes.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-08-21 02:23:15 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-08-21 01:14:21 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |