On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:01:13PM -0500, Tom Lane 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?
So you'd manually create an index, attach it to a constraint, drop the
constraint, and find that the index had disappeared? ISTM since you created
the index explicitly, you should have to drop it explicitly as well.
--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com
