> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > 6. A unique index is already defined over (b, a)
>
> > - As above. Technically a different index, but effect
> > as far as uniqueness is concerned is identical?
>
> This case *must not* be an error IMHO: it's perfectly reasonable to have
> indexes on both (a,b) and (b,a), and if the column pair happens to be
> unique, there's no reason why they shouldn't both be marked unique.
>
> Because of that, I'm not too excited about raising an error in any case
> except where you have an absolutely identical pre-existing index, ie,
> there's already a unique index on (a,b) --- doesn't matter much whether
> it's marked primary or not.
>
> For ADD PRIMARY KEY, there mustn't be any pre-existing primary index,
> of course. I can see promoting an extant matching unique index to
> primary status, though, rather than making another index.
>
Yea, I agree with Tom. Usually we let the person do whatever they want
except in cases that clearly make no sense or where we can improve it.
Good questions, though.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026