On 10/15/2013 12:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> However, it does seem like the new syntax could be extended with and
>> optional "USING unqiue_index_name" in the future (9.5), no?
>
> There is no reason why we couldn't do that and just consider that one
> unique index. Whether we should is another question -
What's the "shouldn't" argument, if any?
> I certainly
> think that mandating it would be very bad.
Agreed. If there is a PK, we should allow the user to use it implicitly.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com