On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> > I've run into a couple cases now where it would be helpful to easily
> > assign an already-existing unique index as a primary key.
>
> You need to present a more convincing use-case than this unsupported
> assertion. There's hardly any effective difference between a unique
> index + NOT NULL constraints and a declared primary key ... so what
> did you really need it for?
Agreed, functionally there's not much of a difference. It's more of a
matter of proper design identifying a primary key.
> > 1. Verify that the index named is a unique index
>
> ... and not partial, and not on expressions, and not invalid, and not
> using non-default opclasses (which might have a surprising definition of
> "equal"), and not already owned by a constraint ... not to mention that
> it'd better be an index on the named table, which among other things
> removes the need for a schema specification on the index name.
Of course.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/