Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
---|
From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | primary key display in psql |
Date: | 2010-01-13 21:33:31 |
Message-ID: | 1263418411.30626.13.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
When you look at a table definition with psql \d, one of the arguably
most important pieces of information -- the primary key -- is hidden
somewhere below under "indexes":
Table "public.test2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
a | integer | not null
b | integer | not null
Indexes:
"test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b)
I think we could easily improve that by having it look something like
this instead:
Table "public.test2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
a | integer | PK
b | integer | PK
Indexes:
"test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b)
Since there can only be one primary key, this should be unambiguous.
I don't have time to code this up right now, but maybe someone feels
inspired. What do you think?
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key display in psql |
Date: | 2010-01-13 21:47:37 |
Message-ID: | 4667.1263419257@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I think we could easily improve that by having it look something like
> this instead:
> Table "public.test2"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------+---------+-----------
> a | integer | PK
> b | integer | PK
> Indexes:
> "test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b)
Spelling out "primary key" would seem to be more in keeping with existing
entries in that column, eg we have "not null" not "NN".
I think this is a sensible proposal for a single-column PK, but am less
sure that it makes sense for multi-col. The modifiers column is
intended to describe column constraints; which a multi-col PK is not,
by definition.
regards, tom lane
From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key display in psql |
Date: | 2010-01-13 22:03:33 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071001131403u12d3fac8x5400c58879dc4a58@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> I think we could easily improve that by having it look something like
>> this instead:
>
>> Table "public.test2"
>> Column | Type | Modifiers
>> --------+---------+-----------
>> a | integer | PK
>> b | integer | PK
>> Indexes:
>> "test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b)
>
> Spelling out "primary key" would seem to be more in keeping with existing
> entries in that column, eg we have "not null" not "NN".
>
> I think this is a sensible proposal for a single-column PK, but am less
> sure that it makes sense for multi-col. The modifiers column is
> intended to describe column constraints; which a multi-col PK is not,
> by definition.
Yeah, IIRC, MySQL shows PRI for each column of a multi-column primary
key, and I think it's horribly confusing. I wouldn't even be in favor
of doing this just for the single-column case, on the grounds that it
makes the single and multiple column cases asymmetrical. IMO, the \d
output has too many bells and whistles already; the last thing we
should do is add more.
...Robert
From: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key display in psql |
Date: | 2010-01-14 17:23:36 |
Message-ID: | 20100114172336.GB27848@rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:03:33PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Spelling out "primary key" would seem to be more in keeping with existing
> > entries in that column, eg we have "not null" not "NN".
> >
> > I think this is a sensible proposal for a single-column PK, but am less
> > sure that it makes sense for multi-col. The modifiers column is
> > intended to describe column constraints; which a multi-col PK is not,
> > by definition.
>
> Yeah, IIRC, MySQL shows PRI for each column of a multi-column primary
> key, and I think it's horribly confusing. I wouldn't even be in favor
> of doing this just for the single-column case, on the grounds that it
> makes the single and multiple column cases asymmetrical. IMO, the \d
> output has too many bells and whistles already; the last thing we
> should do is add more.
How about spelling it as so:
Table "public.test"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
a | integer | primary key
b | integer |
Indexes:
"test1_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a)
Table "public.test2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
a | integer | primary key (compound)
b | integer | primary key (compound)
Indexes:
"test2_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a, b)
As to Tom's point that a compound primary key is a table level
restriction, by definition, participating in such a key is still a
restriction on what values that column can take. When introspecting
someone else's schema, with a very wide table, seeing '(compound)'
is a nice strong hint to go looking for the other members of the PK.
Ross
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
The Connexions Project http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE