Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless

On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 01:27:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > This requires a catversion bump, for which it may seem a bit late;
> > however I think it's better to release pg11 without a useless catalog
> > column only to remove it in pg12 ...
>
> Catversion bumps during beta are routine. If we had put out rc1
> I'd say it was too late, but we have not.

At the same time Covering indexes are a new thing, so if the timing
allows, let's move on with having a cleaner catalog layer from the
start, that's less compatibility breakages to justify later on.
Hopefully.

> 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

Yeah... I looked at the thread.
--
Michael