Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless

On Sun, Sep  2, 2018 at 01:27:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > This requires a catversion bump, for which it may seem a bit late;
> > however I think it's better to release pg11 without a useless catalog
> > column only to remove it in pg12 ...
> 
> Catversion bumps during beta are routine.  If we had put out rc1
> I'd say it was too late, but we have not.
> 
> 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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +