On 10-11-07 01:54 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Attached is the patch that extends the same feature for UNIQUE indexes.
It also includes some doc changes for the ALTER TABLE command, but I
could not verify the resulting changes since I don't have the
doc-building infrastructure installed.
Regards,
Gurjeet,
I've taken a stab at reviewing this.
Submission Review:
========================
Tests
--------
The expected output for the regression tests you added don't match
what I'm getting when I run the tests with your patch applied.
I think you just need to regenerate the expected results they seem
to be from a previous version of the patch (different error messages etc..).
Documentation
---------------
I was able to generate the docs.
The ALTER TABLE page under the synopsis has
ADD table_constraint
where table_constraint is defined on the CREATE TABLE page.
On the CREATE TABLE page table_constraint isn't defined as having the WITH
, the WITH is part of index_parameters.
I propose the alter table page instead have
ADD table_constraint [index_parameters]
where index_parameters also references the CREATE TABLE page like
table_constraint.
Usability Review
====================
Behaviour
-------------
I feel that if the ALTER TABLE ... renames the the index
a NOTICE should be generated. We generate notices about creating an
index for a new pkey. We should give them a notice that we are renaming
an index on them.
Coding Review:
======================
Error Messages
-----------------
in tablecmds your errdetail messages often don't start with a capital
letter. I belive the preference is to have the errdetail strings start
with a capital letter and end with a period.
tablecmds.c - get_constraint_index_oid
contains the check
/* Currently only B-tree indexes are suupported for primary keys */
if (index_rel->rd_rel->relam != BTREE_AM_OID)
elog(ERROR, "\"%s\" is not a B-Tree index", index_name);
but above we already validate that the index is a unique index with
another check. Today only B-tree indexes support unique constraints.
If this changed at some point and we could have a unique index of some
other type, would something in this patch need to be changed to support
them? If we are only depending on the uniqueness property then I think
this check is covered by the uniquness one higher in the function.
Also note the typo in your comment above (suupported)
Comments
-----------------
index.c: Line 671 and 694. Your indentation changes make the comments
run over 80 characters. If you end up submitting a new version
of the patch I'd reformat those two comments.
Other than those issues the patch looks good to me.
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
