> > Also, when talking about whether or not the index supporting a
> constraint
> > should be sort of 'hidden' from the user, should not we change
> pg_dump to
> > dump unique indices using the ALTER TABLE syntax, rather than the CREATE
> > UNIQUE INDEX syntax? Otherwise this information will be lost.
>
> I thought we did that already.
Nope: (CVS-HEAD)
test=# create table test (a int4 unique);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create implicit index 'test_a_key' for
table 'test'
CREATE TABLE
test=# \q
chriskl@alpha:~$ pg_dump test
--
-- Selected TOC Entries:
--
\connect - chriskl
SET search_path = public, pg_catalog;
--
-- TOC Entry ID 2 (OID 16575)
--
-- Name: test Type: TABLE Schema: public Owner: chriskl
--
CREATE TABLE "test" ( "a" integer
);
--
-- Data for TOC Entry ID 4 (OID 16575)
--
-- Name: test Type: TABLE DATA Schema: public Owner: chriskl
--
COPY "test" FROM stdin;
\.
--
-- TOC Entry ID 3 (OID 16577)
--
-- Name: test_a_key Type: INDEX Schema: public Owner: chriskl
--
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX test_a_key ON test USING btree (a);
I think that if an index is unique and uses btree, it should be dumped as an
alter table statement?
Chris
