Jeff Davis wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 11:47 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> That sounds like the constraint is based on an existing index, but there >> can't be any existing indexes on a table that hasn't been created yet. >> If this creates the index, then the syntax needs to support specifying >> index access method and an opclass for all the columns. > > Of course, thanks for pointing that out. To make it work at CREATE TABLE > time, the language would have to specify the index access method, and > the index name should be optional. Do you think it's worthwhile adjust > the syntax for that, or would it just bloat the CREATE TABLE syntax for > no reason? > > I'm leaning toward not allowing it at CREATE TABLE time.
Seems reasonable to me too. > However, I'm not sure if it's very easy to provide support for > concurrent index building. Should I block it, or is it worth > investigating further? Dunno. It sure would be nice, but it's not a showstopper. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB 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
