| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints |
| Date: | 2002-07-13 17:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | 3930.1026579835@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
> Yup. Makes sense. I submitted a patch which retains the difference.
> If the index is created with CREATE UNIQUE, it's dumped with CREATE
> UNIQUE. Constraint UNIQUE is treated likewise.
Yes, I was going to suggest that --- we should try to reproduce the way
that the definition was created, not enforce our own ideas of style.
CREATE INDEX will always be more flexible than constraints anyway
(non-default index type, non-default opclasses, partial indexes for
starters) so the notion that it might go away someday is a nonstarter.
Rod's original pg_depend patch tried to make a pg_constraint entry for
any unique index, but I changed it to only make entries for indexes
that were actually made from constraint clauses, so the distinction
is preserved in the system catalogs. Just a matter of having pg_dump
respect it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-13 17:07:52 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/ oc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml oc/src/sgml/r ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-13 16:53:16 | Re: Memo on dropping practices |