On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily > > assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key. > > You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported > assertion. There's hardly any effective difference between a unique > index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what > did you really need it for?
Agreed, functionally there's not much of a difference. It's more of a matter of proper design identifying a primary key. > > 1. Verify that the index named is a unique index > > ... and not partial, and not on expressions, and not invalid, and not > using non-default opclasses (which might have a surprising definition of > "equal"), and not already owned by a constraint ... not to mention that > it'd better be an index on the named table, which among other things > removes the need for a schema specification on the index name. Of course. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
