[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:       2008-05-12 17:25:26
Message-ID: 48287D86.8030908 () dunslane ! net
[Download RAW message or body]



Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, aside from selecting the index the command would have to verify
> that the indexed columns are all NOT NULL.  We could either have it
> just throw an error if they aren't, or have it silently try to do
> an ALTER SET NOT NULL, which would require a table scan.
>
> I'm going to argue for the "just throw an error" choice.  I don't like
> the idea of a utility command that takes exclusive lock and then is
> either near-instantaneous or slow depending on factors not immediately
> obvious.
>
> 			
>   

+1

cheers

andrew

-- 
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]