On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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?
Well, I think the behavior as described is what we want. If the
syntax associated with that behavior is going to lead to confusion,
I'd view that as a deficiency of the syntax, rather than a deficiency
of the behavior. (I make this comment with some reluctance
considering the amount of bikeshedding we've already done on this
topic, but... that's what I think.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
