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. -Jonah On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Apparently your definition of "easy" depends entirely on >> keystrokes and not at all on memory/cognitive burden. > > I was trying to remove one opportunity for human error, which is tied to > memory and cognitive burden. It is very easy to fat finger something. Is it > a critical error? No. Is it obnoxious to have to go back and fix it, yes. > When you are going back to fix, are you going to be grousing about how > PostgreSQL doesn't make this easier, maybe. > >> >> IMHO a utility command should do one easily-explained thing. The fewer >> options the better. > > I would agree with this except that by my definition your argument fails. > You are adding options by not allowing a sane default that applies > consistency to the database. I believe this will cause more trouble than > having the limitation in the first place. > > Anyway, I have made my arguments. I believe we are still in the middle of a > commit fest. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
