David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There's no need for a new error message I think, because we should just
>> ignore such indexes. After all, there might be a valid matching index
>> later on.
> hmm, but if the user attempts to define the foreign key that contains a
> duplicate column in the REFERENCES part, then we'll never "find" any
> indexes, so there's no point in looking at all.
OK, now that I'm a bit more awake, I agree with that.
> I've attached a version of the patch that's a little smarter when it comes
> to doing the duplicate checks in the attnums array...
Applied with some cosmetic adjustments. I didn't bother with the
regression test either --- this doesn't seem like something that needs
permanent memorialization as a regression test.
regards, tom lane
