On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurj...@gmail.com> writes: > > But I still hold a bias towards renaming the index to match constraint > name > > (with a NOTICE), rather than require that the constraint name match the > > index name, because the constraint name is optional and when it is not > > provided system has to generate a name and we have to rename the index > > anyway to maintain consistency. > > No. If the constraint name is not specified, we should certainly use > the existing index name, not randomly rename it. > > Attached is the updated patch with doc changes and test cases. An overview of the patch is in order:
The new command syntax is
ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD [CONSTRAINT constraint_name]
PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX index_name
[ DEFERRABLE | NOT DEFERRABLE ] [ INITIALLY DEFERRED | INITIALLY IMMEDIATE
];
ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD [CONSTRAINT constraint_name]
UNIQUE USING INDEX index_name
[ DEFERRABLE | NOT DEFERRABLE ] [ INITIALLY DEFERRED | INITIALLY IMMEDIATE
];
The index should be a unique index, and it should not be an expressional or
partial index. The included test cases exercise a few other cases.
If the constraint name is provided, then index is renamed to that with a
NOTICE, else the index name is used as the constraint name.
I have consciously disallowed the ability to specify storage_parameters
using the WITH clause, if somebody thinks it is wise to allow that and is
needed, I can do that.
Git branch: https://github.com/gurjeet/postgres/tree/constraint_with_index
Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurj...@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
constraint_using_index.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
