| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stéphane Schildknecht <stephane(dot)schildknecht(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FK Constraint on index not PK |
| Date: | 2007-01-13 16:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 24951.1168705867@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> The problem is that the constraint was defined with a dependence on the
> second index. I guess what you could do is drop the constraint, drop
> the second index, and then recreate the constraint. Try it within a
> transaction block, just in case it doesn't work (but I don't see why it
> wouldn't)
That's certainly the safest way, but if this is a live production
database then the time spent holding exclusive locks while
re-establishing the FK constraint may be a problem. If that's not
tolerable then the solution is manually mucking with the system
catalogs as I suggested in an earlier reply.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-13 16:45:09 | Re: index type for indexing long texts |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-13 16:22:32 | Re: Problems with unique restrictions |