Horton

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

Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg@sympatico.ca>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, r t <pgsql@xzilla.net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-01-25T20:38:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> In the end I think this is mainly an issue of setting appropriate
> expectations in the documentation.  I've added the following text to
> the ALTER TABLE manual page:
>
>     <para>
>      After this command is executed, the index is <quote>owned</> by the
>      constraint, in the same way as if the index had been built by
>      a regular <literal>ADD PRIMARY KEY</> or <literal>ADD UNIQUE</>
>      command.  In particular, dropping the constraint will make the index
>      disappear too.
>     </para>
>

I'd change that last sentence to:

... dropping the constraint will drop the index too.

'disappear' doesn't seem accurate in the context.

Regards,
-- 
gurjeet.singh
@ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company
http://www.EnterpriseDB.com

singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device