public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Outdated note about unique indexes 3+ messages / 3 participants [nested] [flat]
* Outdated note about unique indexes @ 2015-07-08 21:56 Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Josh Kupershmidt @ 2015-07-08 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-docs Hi, I noticed that the note on a page about unique indexes http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/indexes-unique.html says "The preferred way to add a unique constraint to a table is ALTER TABLE ... ADD CONSTRAINT. The use of indexes to enforce unique constraints could be considered an implementation detail that should not be accessed directly... ". That note has been there forever, in particular since before we supported CONCURRENTLY, which is pretty darn important in many uses nowadays. Since it seems like some users have taken this suggestion seriously, e.g. on stackoverflow[1], how about we remove this outdated suggestion? There is already a previous mention a few sections earlier[2] suggesting the use of CONCURRENTLY, so I don't think we really need to reiterate that suggestion here. Josh [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23542794/postgres-unique-constraint-vs-index [2] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/indexes-intro.html diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml index 309fd12..2d131c9 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml @@ -655,11 +655,7 @@ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX <replaceable>name</replaceable> ON <replaceable>table</repla <note> <para> - The preferred way to add a unique constraint to a table is - <literal>ALTER TABLE ... ADD CONSTRAINT</literal>. The use of - indexes to enforce unique constraints could be considered an - implementation detail that should not be accessed directly. - One should, however, be aware that there's no need to manually + There's no need to manually create indexes on unique columns; doing so would just duplicate the automatically-created index. </para> -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs Attachments: [text/plain] indices_constraint_suggestion.diff (769B, 3-indices_constraint_suggestion.diff) download | inline diff: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml index 309fd12..2d131c9 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/indices.sgml @@ -655,11 +655,7 @@ CREATE UNIQUE INDEX <replaceable>name</replaceable> ON <replaceable>table</repla <note> <para> - The preferred way to add a unique constraint to a table is - <literal>ALTER TABLE ... ADD CONSTRAINT</literal>. The use of - indexes to enforce unique constraints could be considered an - implementation detail that should not be accessed directly. - One should, however, be aware that there's no need to manually + There's no need to manually create indexes on unique columns; doing so would just duplicate the automatically-created index. </para> ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Outdated note about unique indexes @ 2015-07-08 22:10 Josh Berkus <[email protected]> parent: Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Josh Berkus @ 2015-07-08 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-docs > That note has been there forever, in particular since before we > supported CONCURRENTLY, which is pretty darn important in many uses > nowadays. Since it seems like some users have taken this suggestion > seriously, e.g. on stackoverflow[1], how about we remove this outdated > suggestion? There is already a previous mention a few sections > earlier[2] suggesting the use of CONCURRENTLY, so I don't think we > really need to reiterate that suggestion here. +1 -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Outdated note about unique indexes @ 2015-08-31 21:05 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2015-08-31 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josh Berkus <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 03:10:46PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > That note has been there forever, in particular since before we > > supported CONCURRENTLY, which is pretty darn important in many uses > > nowadays. Since it seems like some users have taken this suggestion > > seriously, e.g. on stackoverflow[1], how about we remove this outdated > > suggestion? There is already a previous mention a few sections > > earlier[2] suggesting the use of CONCURRENTLY, so I don't think we > > really need to reiterate that suggestion here. > > +1 Patch applied through 9.5. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-08-31 21:05 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-07-08 21:56 Outdated note about unique indexes Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]> 2015-07-08 22:10 ` Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 2015-08-31 21:05 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox