On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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?
Well, I think the behavior as described is what we want. If the syntax associated with that behavior is going to lead to confusion, I'd view that as a deficiency of the syntax, rather than a deficiency of the behavior. (I make this comment with some reluctance considering the amount of bikeshedding we've already done on this topic, but... that's what I think.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
