| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ioguix(at)free(dot)fr, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3774: create table like including index doesn't update pg_constraints with primary key |
| Date: | 2007-12-01 23:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | 29058.1196552812@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This can be handled by setting index->isconstraint appropriately inside
> generateClonedIndexStmt().
Done.
> The fundamental question though is should we allow primary, unique
> CONSTRAINTS which use the index mechanism just as an implementation to be
> created using the "INCLUDING INDEXES" mechanism.
Yeah, this bizarreness was foreseen and agreed to back when we set up
LIKE INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS the way it was defined (ie, copying only
CHECK constraints and not other things called constraints). I was never
very thrilled with that definition myself, but it's a bit too late to
revisit it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-02 03:48:22 | Re: BUG #3792: cluster in UTF deny database in LATIN2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-01 16:44:18 | Re: was enhancement of temp tables in plpgsql supposed to apply to temp view? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-02 00:01:53 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] plperl and regexps with accented characters - incompatible? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-01 23:16:43 | Re: CommandCounterIncrement versus plan caching |