On 10/15/2013 12:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> However, it does seem like the new syntax could be extended with and >> optional "USING unqiue_index_name" in the future (9.5), no? > > There is no reason why we couldn't do that and just consider that one > unique index. Whether we should is another question -
What's the "shouldn't" argument, if any? > I certainly > think that mandating it would be very bad. Agreed. If there is a PK, we should allow the user to use it implicitly. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
