On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> In this variant, you explicitly specify the constraint by name. > > I do think it's a bit sad to not be able to specify unique indexes that > aren't constraints. So I'd like to have a corresponding ON INDEX - which > would be trivial.
Then what's the point of having ON CONSTRAINT? The point of it working that way was we're not exposing the "implementation detail" of the index. While I happen to think that that's a distinction without a difference anyway, that certainly was the idea. I would care about the fact that you can't name a unique index with no constraint if there wasn't already a way of doing that with inference (I'm thinking in particular of partial indexes here, which never have constraints). But there is. So what's the problem? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
