Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless
Date
Msg-id 19735.1536351179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A strange GiST error message or fillfactor of GiST build
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq stricter integer parsing