Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5974632A98 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:14:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30908-01 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:14:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9BA6325F4 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:14:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NVooU-0000u0-QC for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:14:19 +0100 Received: from s01060015e975d7fb.wp.shawcable.net ([24.77.73.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:14:18 +0100 Received: from spluque by s01060015e975d7fb.wp.shawcable.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:14:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org From: Seb Subject: Re: rename primary key Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:13:51 -0600 Organization: Church of Emacs Lines: 20 Message-ID: <87eilrz6ps.fsf@kolob.sebmags.homelinux.org> References: <87hbqo11yg.fsf@kolob.sebmags.homelinux.org> <1d581afe1001141934x2c525992w2e4bcf40a3113207@mail.gmail.com> <87d41c11g4.fsf@kolob.sebmags.homelinux.org> <4B500CA5.5060006@lelarge.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s01060015e975d7fb.wp.shawcable.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YeZ/xja0CMC2fv7IFRKeY9ZEsBI= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.802 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.797, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201001/30 X-Sequence-Number: 33566 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:35:17 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: [...] > Primary keys are constraints. They are enforced with an index, but > actually they are constraints. So we put them on the constraints > nodes. > There is the same behaviour for unique constraints. Thanks. Would there be any problem with listing the index used to enforce the primary key constraint in the Indexes node to let us know of its existence? In fact, psql does report it with the meta-command \d. It was somewhat confusing to see Indexes(0), and then having to rename an index to rename a primary key constraint. -- Seb