From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql's \d display of unique index vs. constraint |
Date: | 2010-04-13 19:36:00 |
Message-ID: | 8780.1271187360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2010-04-09 at 18:01 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> I often come across tables with either a unique index or a unique
>> constraint on them, and psql isn't helpful at showing the difference
>> between the two. Normally, I don't care which is which, except for
>> when I have to manually drop and recreate the index or constraint to
>> speed up a bulk load.
> Yes, I have also been annoyed by that. Perhaps you could work out a
> proposed change and send it to the hackers list. You don't necessarily
> need to code it up, but make some mock-ups about how things would look
> in different situations.
Please note that we already rejected the use of a separate constraints
subheading in connection with EXCLUDE constraints; a patch to introduce
one in order to distinguish unique constraints from manually-created
unique indexes isn't likely to fare much better. My recollection is
that it's intentional that psql obscures the difference, because for
most querying purposes there isn't any difference. I agree that
sometimes you'd like to know the difference, so I could see making some
small change that would make it possible to tell the difference when
needed. But I think it shouldn't make the two cases look completely
unrelated. Maybe something like saying "unique constraint" vs just
"unique" would fly.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-13 20:04:04 | Re: Showing debug messages in my C function |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-13 19:16:06 | Re: When is an explicit cast necessary? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-13 20:00:57 | Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-13 19:03:58 | Re: a faster compression algorithm for pg_dump |