On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 19:08 +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> The September CF starts in a couple of days, so this patch is in
> danger of missing the boat.
Thanks for keeping track. I accomplished a significant amount today, so
there's still hope for 9/15.
I will most likely just focus on the core functionality so that I have
something complete and reviewable.
> The unresolved points seem to be:
>
> * What to do about INCLUDING INDEXES EXCLUDING CONSTRAINTS --
> Postgres gets this wrong for unique indexes currently. Should we
> persist with the existing behaviour or fix it as part of this patch?
> My personal feeling was +1 for fixing it in this patch.
I don't think that it should make a difference whether "EXCLUDING
CONSTRAINTS" is specified or omitted. There is no "[INCLUDING|EXCLUDING]
CONSTRAINTS" option in the standard, but for the other LIKE options,
EXCLUDING is implied when INCLUDING is not specified.
So, I think we have to make a decision:1. If INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS is specified, but not INCLUDING INDEXES, do we:
copythe indexes silently; or emit a nice message; or throw an ERROR?2. What if INCLUDING INDEXES is specified, but
notINCLUDING CONSTRAINTS?
> * Should we emit some sort of message when the user specifies
> INCLUDING INDEXES or INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS but not both? I didn't
> have strong feelings about this one but there was some differing
> thoughts about what log level to use. I thought NOTICE but Alvaro
> reckons we've got too many of those already. Tom mentioned the
> suggested (but unimplemented) NOVICE level, which seems like a good
> move but doesn't resolve the problem of what to do in this patch. One
> option would be to add a message at the NOTICE level with a TODO to
> downgrade it to NOVICE if/when that becomes available.
I don't think either of these things are a huge amount of work; they are
mostly just decisions that need to be made. I'll start off implementing
whatever is easiest/cleanest, and we'll continue the discussion.
Regards,Jeff Davis
