Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless
Date: 2018-09-07 20:12:59
Message-ID: 19735.1536351179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-07 20:52:19 Re: pgsql: Allow extensions to install built as well as unbuilt headers.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-09-07 20:12:29 Re: A strange GiST error message or fillfactor of GiST build