On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I don't recall what the problem with just swapping the names was - but
>> I'm pretty sure there was one... Hm. The index relation oids are
>> referred to by constraints and dependencies. That's somewhat
>> solvable. But I think there was something else as well...
> The reason given 2 years ago for not using relname was the fast that
> the oid of the index changes, and to it be refered by some pg_depend
> entries:
Feel free to correct: "and that it could be referred".
--
Michael
