| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
| Date: | 2008-05-10 22:48:23 |
| Message-ID: | 48262637.7070100@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Yes, I just think PREBUILT conveys the meaning of the command more
> appropriately. I could care less though.
>
(Please don't top-answer)
I don't think we should add new keywords unnecessarily.
cheers
andrew
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> So, would anyone be averse to something like the following:
>>>
>>> ALTER TABLE blah ADD ... PRIMARY KEY (...) USING PREBUILT INDEX index_hame
>>>
>>> If the user doesn't specify CONSTRAINT constraint_name, it will
>>> default to current implicit behavior of col_pkey.
>>>
>> This is all so that the primary key shows up with a nice "PRIMARY KEY" instead
>> of just the unique index?
>>
>> The "PREBUILT" seems unnecessary in that syntax.
>>
>> --
>> Gregory Stark
>> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-11 00:33:24 | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-05-10 21:44:34 | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |