Tom Lane schrieb:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily
>> assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key.
>>
>
> You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported
> assertion. There's hardly any effective difference between a unique
> index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what
> did you really need it for?
>
>
In fact it seems to be necessary when connecting with ODBC, I had the
problem a month ago, MsSQL will not work correctly with connected tables
in a postgres database when there is no PK. NOT NULL and unique index
is not enough.
But I think it's overkill to add ALTER commands for this rare corner
case, maybe it's enough to set "indisprimary" on the index?
