Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Please explain how you thought it would help you do that, because
>> without some evidence that there's a use-case, I'm inclined to fix it
>> as above ...
> Note that it was a unique index:
Missed that --- obviously need more caffeine ...
> Not sure that's enough of a use case to justify not banning it...
Yeah, it probably is.
regards, tom lane
