[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:       Andrew Dunstan <andrew () dunslane ! net>
Date:       2008-05-10 22:48:23
Message-ID: 48262637.7070100 () dunslane ! net
[Download RAW message or body]




Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Yes, I just think PREBUILT conveys the meaning of the command more
> appropriately.  I could care less though.
>   


(Please don't top-answer)

I don't think we should add new keywords unnecessarily.

cheers

andrew
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>   
>> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>     
>>> So, would anyone be averse to something like the following:
>>>
>>> ALTER TABLE blah ADD ... PRIMARY KEY (...) USING PREBUILT INDEX index_hame
>>>
>>> If the user doesn't specify CONSTRAINT constraint_name, it will
>>> default to current implicit behavior of col_pkey.
>>>       
>> This is all so that the primary key shows up with a nice "PRIMARY KEY" instead
>> of just the unique index?
>>
>> The "PREBUILT" seems unnecessary in that syntax.
>>
>> --
>>  Gregory Stark
>>  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-- 
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]