| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key |
| Date: | 2008-05-12 17:25:26 |
| Message-ID: | 48287D86.8030908@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, aside from selecting the index the command would have to verify
> that the indexed columns are all NOT NULL. We could either have it
> just throw an error if they aren't, or have it silently try to do
> an ALTER SET NOT NULL, which would require a table scan.
>
> I'm going to argue for the "just throw an error" choice. I don't like
> the idea of a utility command that takes exclusive lock and then is
> either near-instantaneous or slow depending on factors not immediately
> obvious.
>
>
>
+1
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-05-12 17:33:45 | Re: Syntax decisions for pl/pgsql RAISE extension |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-05-12 17:19:17 | Re: Proposal: Integrity check |