From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index |
Date: | 2010-11-29 01:06:42 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin04diTRki2iV9PHyKk_GHU0SSQ7-h5_OQBzS7u@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:58, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> wrote:
> The attached version of the patch gets your regression tests to pass.
> I'm going to mark this as ready for a committer.
I think we need more discussions about the syntax:
ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (...) WITH (INDEX='index_name')
Issues:
* WITH (...) is designed for storage parameters. I think treating "INDEX"
as a special keyword in the way might be confusable.
* 'index_name' needs to be single-quoted, but object identifiers should
be double-quoted literals in normal cases.
* The key specifier is a duplicated option because the index has own keys.
Do we need it? It might be for safety, but redundant.
Note that the patch raises a reasonable error on conflict:
ERROR: PRIMARY KEY/UNIQUE constraint definition does not match the index
And, I found a bug:
* USING INDEX TABLESPACE clause is silently ignored, even if the index
uses another tablespace.
After all, do we need a special syntax for the functionality?
Reusing WITH (...) syntax seems to be a trouble for me.
"ADD PRIMARY KEY USING index_name" might be a candidate, but we'd
better reserve USING for non-btree PRIMARY KEY/UNIQUE indexes.
Ideas and suggestions?
--
Itagaki Takahiro
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-11-29 01:14:23 | Re: Assertion failure on hot standby |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-29 01:01:35 | Re: profiling connection overhead |