On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 05:16:04PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > > However, I don't see why we need (column_list). Surely the index has a > > column list already? > > > > ALTER TABLE table_name ADD CONSTRAINT pk_name PRIMARY KEY USING index_name > > > > ... seems like the syntax most consistent with the existing commands. > > Anything else would be confusingly inconsistent with the way you add a > > brand-new PK. > > > > > Uh, the syntax I posted was based on this currently valid syntax: > > ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (column_list); > > The constraint bit is optional, which is why I left it out, but I presume it > would be optional with the new syntax as well... Also, I'm not wedded to the > idea of keeping the column list, but if you are arguing to make it super > consistent, then I think you need to include it.
If you consider that an index basically is, in some sense, a pre-canned column list, then: ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY (column_list); ALTER TABLE table_name ADD PRIMARY KEY USING index_name; are parallel constructions. And it avoids the error case of the user providing a column list that doesn't match the index. Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reeds...@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
