I think there is some chance that such a change could induce regression for the cases when there are many index columns or I think even when index is on multiple columns (consider index is on first and eight column in a ten column table).
I don't see that as a problem because the routine only checks for columns that are passed as "interesting_cols".
Noticed below comment in interesting-attrs-2.patch + * are considered the "key" of rows in the table, and columns that are + * part of indirect indexes.
Is it right to mention about indirect indexes in above comment considering indirect indexes are still not part of core code?
I agree. We can add details about indirect indexes or WARM later, as and when those patches get committed.
Pavan, please rebase your WARM patch on top of this and let me know how you like it. I'll post a new version of indirect indexes later this week.
I've rebased WARM on top of this patch and the proposed changes look fine from WARM's perspective too. I'll send rebased patches separately.
