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

On 10-11-22 09:37 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg@sympatico.ca 
> <mailto:ssinger_pg@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>
>
>     Submission Review:
>     ========================
>
>     Tests
>     --------
>     The expected output for the regression tests you added don't match
>     what I'm getting when I run the tests with your patch applied.
>     I think you just need to regenerate the expected results they seem
>     to be from a previous version of the patch (different error
>     messages etc..).
>
>
> Fixed. Also modified one test to cover the case where constraint name 
> is provided.

Almost fixed.
I still get an unexpected difference.

! DETAIL:  cannot create PRIMARY KEY/UNIQUE constraint with a non-unique 
index.
   CREATE UNIQUE INDEX rpi_idx2 ON rpi_test(a , b);
   -- should fail; WITH INDEX option specified more than once.
   ALTER TABLE rpi_test ADD PRIMARY KEY (a, b)
--- 35,41 ----
   -- should fail; non-unique
   ALTER TABLE rpi_test ADD primary key(a, b) WITH (INDEX = 'rpi_idx1');
   ERROR:  "rpi_idx1" is not a unique index
! DETAIL:  Cannot create PRIMARY KEY/UNIQUE constraint using a 
non-unique index.




>
>     Documentation
>     ---------------
>
>     I was able to generate the docs.
>
>     The ALTER TABLE page under the synopsis has
>
>             ADD table_constraint
>
>     where table_constraint is defined on the CREATE TABLE page.
>     On the CREATE TABLE page table_constraint isn't defined as having
>     the WITH
>     , the WITH is part of index_parameters.
>
>     I propose the alter table page instead have
>
>     ADD table_constraint [index_parameters]
>
>     where index_parameters also references the CREATE TABLE page like
>     table_constraint.
>
>
> IMHO index_parameters is an optional component of table_constraint, 
> and hence can't be mentioned here, at least not the way shown above.
>

My reading of CREATE TABLE is that index_parameters is an optional 
parameter that comes after table_constraint and isn't part of 
table_constraint.   Any other opinions?

Everything else I mentioned seems fixed in this version


> 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
>
>
>
>