| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless |
| Date: | 2018-09-07 19:48:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20180907194829.GE28811@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 2, 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.
>
> 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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-09-07 20:02:57 | Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-09-07 19:09:37 | Re: A strange GiST error message or fillfactor of GiST build |