On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On sön, 2010-11-28 at 20:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Itagaki Takahiro > >> <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:58, Steve Singer <ssin...@ca.afilias.info> > wrote: > >> >> The attached version of the patch gets your regression tests to pass. > >> >> I'm going to mark this as ready for a committer. > >> > > >> > I think we need more discussions about the syntax: > >> > ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (...) WITH > (INDEX='index_name') > >> > >> Why not: > >> > >> ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (...) INDEX index_name; > > > > I would think that that determines that name of the index that the > > command creates. It does not convey that an existing index is to be > > used. > > +1 on this being confusing > Well, that'll become clear pretty quickly if you try to use it that > way, but I'm certainly open to other ideas. > > Random thoughts: > > ALTER TABLE table_name SET PRIMARY KEY INDEX index_name > ALTER INDEX index_name PRIMARY KEY > > Other suggestions? What exactly was the objection to the following --> ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (column_list) USING index_name; Is the objection that you might have been trying to specify a constraint named "using" ? I'm willing to make that option more difficult. :-) Robert Treat play: http://www.xzilla.net work: http://www.omniti.com/is/hiring
