Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Use ALTER TABLE on the index.
> Hmm...not ALTER INDEX? Now that there's an operation that actually
> modifies an index instead of the table itself, should there be an ALTER
> INDEX? It would be cleaner and more consistent, IMO...
[ shrug ] There have been some variants of ALTER TABLE that would work
on indexes since day one. Sequences too.
regards, tom lane