: [GENERAL] deferring/disabling unique index
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >So, does it mean that the only way to disable the index is to drop
> >and recreate it? What about setting indisunique to false temporarily?
> >
> >
> >
> I am just curious... why would you w
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >So, does it mean that the only way to disable the index is to drop and
> >recreate it? What about setting indisunique to false temporarily?
> >
> >
> >
> I am just curious... why would you want to defer a unique constraint?
I remember now --- if you do:
UPDA
: Bruce Momjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] deferring/disabling unique index
>So, does it mean that the only way to disable the index is to drop and
>recreate it? What about setting indisunique to false temporarily?
>
>
>
I am just curious... why would you want to
Oleg Lebedev wrote:
> So, does it mean that the only way to disable the index is to drop and
> recreate it? What about setting indisunique to false temporarily?
Not sure. I seem to remember a way someone got around this, but can't
remember the details.
--
Bruce Momjian
So, does it mean that the only way to disable the index is to drop and
recreate it? What about setting indisunique to false temporarily?
I am just curious... why would you want to defer a unique constraint?
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/O
]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] deferring/disabling unique index
Oleg Lebedev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to know if there is a way to defer or disable a unique index on
> a table during an update. One way would be to set indisunique to
> false, perform update and then set to true. But, this
Oleg Lebedev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to know if there is a way to defer or disable a unique index on a
> table during an update. One way would be to set indisunique to false,
> perform update and then set to true. But, this seems to be an ugly
> solution.
>
> I've posted a similar message 6 mon
