Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date: 2018-08-31 20:50:20
Message-ID: 20180831205020.nxhw6ypysgshjtnl@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I'm wondering what's the genesis of this coninclude column actually.
As far as I can tell, the only reason this column is there, is to be
able to print the INCLUDE clause in a UNIQUE/PK constraint in ruleutils
... but surely the same list can be obtained from the pg_index.indkey
instead?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Pierre Pelletier 2018-08-31 20:56:30 Re: psql \dC incorrectly shows casts "with inout" as "binary coercible" on 9.5.14 and 11beta3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-31 20:46:52 Re: psql \dC incorrectly shows casts "with inout" as "binary coercible" on 9.5.14 and 11beta3