Re: Should this require CASCADE?
От | Christopher Kings-Lynne |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEBLCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should this require CASCADE? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: