On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:23:15PM +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote: > 2009/8/21 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com>: > > If they include indexes and not constraints, I think we should > > follow the same policy as unique constraints, and create the index > > and the constraint. > > > > The behavior seems a little strange to me, but that's the current > > behavior for unique indexes. > > This may be an opportunity to fix it. > > The current behaviour seems to be predicated on the unique > constraint being an integral part of the index itself. While this > might be true from a system catalog point of view > (pg_index.indisunique), if a user says that they want to copy a > table's structure INCLUDING INDEXES EXCLUDING CONSTRAINTS then IMO > they've made their intention perfectly clear. They'd expect it to > create an index sans the unique constraint. Ignoring the user's > intention and copying the index as-is (including the unique > constraint) would be unfriendly. > > Unless the SQL spec demands that we do so?
SQL:2008, like its predecessors, does not mention indexing at all. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
