On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:01:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > One other issue that might be worthy of discussion is that as things > stand, execution of the ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX syntax will cause > the constraint to absorb the index as an INTERNAL dependency. That > means dropping the constraint would make the index go away silently --- > it no longer has any separate life. If the intent is just to provide a > way to get the effect of ALTER ADD PRIMARY KEY CONCURRENTLY, then this > behavior is probably fine. But someone who believes DROP CONSTRAINT > exactly reverses the effects of ADD CONSTRAINT might be surprised. > Comments?
So you'd manually create an index, attach it to a constraint, drop the constraint, and find that the index had disappeared? ISTM since you created the index explicitly, you should have to drop it explicitly as well. -- Joshua Tolley / eggyknap End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
