From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Dump/Restore of non-default PKs
In-reply-to: <CAKFQuwbZcudqgSCwM4rKoOfs1AbjN3ssPXv6yqmABGitk2CBwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANbhV-GdnAc-fpUvtkwJ5+YGoKYVOmTUQp9k1A4ODo=bdJ-Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFQuwbZcudqgSCwM4rKoOfs1AbjN3ssPXv6yqmABGitk2CBwg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:20:52 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2379839.1650314887.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:48:07 -0400
Message-ID: <2379840.1650314887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2379840.1650314887%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 1:00 PM Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>
> wrote:
>> I propose that we change pg_dump so that when it creates a PK it does
>> so in 2 commands:
>> 1. CREATE [UNIQUE] INDEX iname ...
>> 2. ALTER TABLE .. ADD PRIMARY KEY USING INDEX iname;

> Why not just get rid of the limitation that constraint definitions don't
> support non-default methods?

That approach would be doubling down on the assumption that we can always
shoehorn more custom options into SQL-standard constraint clauses, and
we'll never fall foul of shift/reduce problems or future spec additions.
I think for example that USING INDEX TABLESPACE is a blot on humanity,
and I'd be very glad to see pg_dump stop using it in favor of doing
things as Simon suggests.

			regards, tom lane