On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane
<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Gurjeet Singh <
singh.gurjeet@gmail.com> writes:
> But I still hold a bias towards renaming the index to match constraint name
> (with a NOTICE), rather than require that the constraint name match the
> index name, because the constraint name is optional and when it is not
> provided system has to generate a name and we have to rename the index
> anyway to maintain consistency.
the existing index name, not randomly rename it.
Attached is the updated patch with doc changes and test cases. An overview of the patch is in order:
The new command syntax is
ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD [CONSTRAINT constraint_name]
PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX index_name
[ DEFERRABLE | NOT DEFERRABLE ] [ INITIALLY DEFERRED | INITIALLY IMMEDIATE ];ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD [CONSTRAINT constraint_name]
UNIQUE USING INDEX index_name
[ DEFERRABLE | NOT DEFERRABLE ] [ INITIALLY DEFERRED | INITIALLY IMMEDIATE ];The index should be a unique index, and it should not be an expressional or partial index. The included test cases exercise a few other cases.
If the constraint name is provided, then index is renamed to that with a NOTICE, else the index name is used as the constraint name.
I have consciously disallowed the ability to specify storage_parameters using the WITH clause, if somebody thinks it is wise to allow that and is needed, I can do that.
Git branch:
https://github.com/gurjeet/postgres/tree/constraint_with_index Regards,
--
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.comsingh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
