Re: Dump/Restore of non-default PKs

From: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dump/Restore of non-default PKs
Date: 2022-04-18 21:05:57
Message-ID: CANbhV-EL5wkS41MJ2vJNi+XrZYRST6a33z8rDS95wWvDPoZu+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 21:48, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 1:00 PM Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> >> I propose that we change pg_dump so that when it creates a PK it does
> >> so in 2 commands:
> >> 1. CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX iname ...
> >> 2. ALTER TABLE .. ADD PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX iname;
>
> > Why not just get rid of the limitation that constraint definitions don't
> > support non-default methods?
>
> That approach would be doubling down on the assumption that we can always
> shoehorn more custom options into SQL-standard constraint clauses, and
> we'll never fall foul of shift/reduce problems or future spec additions.
> I think for example that USING INDEX TABLESPACE is a blot on humanity,
> and I'd be very glad to see pg_dump stop using it in favor of doing
> things as Simon suggests.

Sigh, agreed. It's more work, but its cleaner in the longer term to
separate indexes from constraints.

I'll look in more detail and come back here later.

Thanks both.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2022-04-18 21:35:21 Hash index build performance tweak from sorting
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2022-04-18 21:00:17 Re: Dump/Restore of non-default PKs