| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, Brad DeJong <Brad(dot)Dejong(at)infor(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
| Date: | 2017-03-30 15:25:38 |
| Message-ID: | 0eb1e3d9-f689-821d-d817-c0bd35816a1c@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> - IDENTITY_P IF_P ILIKE IMMEDIATE IMMUTABLE IMPLICIT_P IMPORT_P IN_P
>> + IDENTITY_P IF_P ILIKE IMMEDIATE IMMUTABLE IMPLICIT_P IMPORT_P IN_P INCLUDE
> I think your syntax would read no worse, possibly even better, if you
> just used the existing INCLUDING keyword.
It was a discussion in this thread about naming and both databases, which
support covering indexes, use INCLUDE keyword.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2017-03-30 15:26:05 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-03-30 15:22:20 | Re: Guidelines for GSoC student proposals / Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions |