Horton

Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2018-09-07T20:12:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sun, Sep  2, 2018 at 01:27:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we do do a bump for beta4, I'd be strongly tempted to address the
>> lack of a unique index for pg_constraint as well, cf
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/10110.1535907645@sss.pgh.pa.us

> Uh, if we add a unique index later, wouldn't that potentially cause
> future restores to fail?  Seems we better add it now.

Yup, done already.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Remove pg_constraint.conincluding

  2. Indexes with INCLUDE columns and their support in B-tree