[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Setting a pre-existing index as a primary key
From:       Mario Weilguni <mweilguni () sime ! com>
Date:       2008-04-10 9:46:55
Message-ID: 47FDE20F.7040006 () sime ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Tom Lane schrieb:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>   
>> I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily
>> assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key.
>>     
>
> You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported
> assertion.  There's hardly any effective difference between a unique
> index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what
> did you really need it for?
>
>   
In fact it seems to be necessary when connecting with ODBC, I had the 
problem a month ago, MsSQL will not work correctly with connected tables 
in a postgres database  when there is no PK. NOT NULL and unique index 
is not enough.

But I think it's overkill to add ALTER commands for this rare corner 
case, maybe it's enough to set "indisprimary" on the index?


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]