Horton

Re: Patch to add a primary key using an existing index

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>, Steve Singer <ssinger@ca.afilias.info>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg@sympatico.ca>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-12-03T20:04:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 03.12.2010 21:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of vie dic 03 16:45:59 -0300 2010:
>
>> ALTER TABLE table_name SET PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX index_name. Quite
>> verbose, but imho USING makes it much more clear that it's an existing
>> index.
>
> I was going to post the same thing (well except I was still thinking in
> ADD PRIMARY KEY rather than SET PRIMARY KEY).  I think SET is better
> than ADD in that it is a bit different from the syntax that makes it
> create a new index.  On the other hand, it could also be pointlessly
> annoying.

I think I'd prefer ADD too. I didn't pay attention to that when I posted.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com