Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3930.1026579835@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unique and Primary Key Constraints (Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <rbt@zort.ca> writes: > Yup. Makes sense. I submitted a patch which retains the difference. > If the index is created with CREATE UNIQUE, it's dumped with CREATE > UNIQUE. Constraint UNIQUE is treated likewise. Yes, I was going to suggest that --- we should try to reproduce the way that the definition was created, not enforce our own ideas of style. CREATE INDEX will always be more flexible than constraints anyway (non-default index type, non-default opclasses, partial indexes for starters) so the notion that it might go away someday is a nonstarter. Rod's original pg_depend patch tried to make a pg_constraint entry for any unique index, but I changed it to only make entries for indexes that were actually made from constraint clauses, so the distinction is preserved in the system catalogs. Just a matter of having pg_dump respect it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: