Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> Well it should be optional but it would be nice if we had the option
>>> to have it renamed per the default... meaning the same output if I
>>> were to do this:
>>
>> If you want that, you can rename the index (either before or
>> afterwards).
>> I don't see any reason to clutter the make-constraint-from-index command
>> with questions of renaming.
>
> As a counter point, I don't see any reason to make the DBA's life
> harder. Sure it is just one step but it is a human step, prone to
> error and taking more time than it should. Why not just make it easy?
> Especially when the easy isn't sacrificing data integrity or quality
> of product?
>
>
>
Because that's not the basis on which we decide to add features. You
need to asses the code complexity, the potential benefit and number of
likely users. In this case, the amount of code required for what would
be nothing more than syntactic sugar for what is in any case a very
simple statement makes me agree with Tom.
cheers
andrew
