On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:41:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... What I'm saying is that the opclass needs to be > > an option to PRIMARY KEY and FOREIGN KEY-- > > PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE, you mean. > > This was brought up before, but I remain less than excited about it. > You can get essentially the same functionality by doing a CREATE UNIQUE > INDEX command, so allowing it as part of the PK/UNIQUE syntax is little > more than syntactic sugar. I'm concerned that wedging opclass names > into that syntax could come back to haunt us some day --- eg, if SQL2009 > decides to put their own kind of option into the same syntactic spot. > > > The case in point is a subtype (domain) with a BTREE operator class. > > I can of course create a separate unique index, however, if I use the > > PRIMARY KEY syntax the op class of the data type is not recognized. > > Hm, does CREATE INDEX work without explicitly specifying the opclass? > I suspect your complaint really stems from overeager getBaseType() calls > in the index definition code, which is maybe fixable without having to > get into syntactic extensions.
I am also leary of syntactic extensions. I've found at least one getbasetype to be misplaced rather than over eager. But I'm looking at these issues as I have time available. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
