Re: pg_constraint.conincluding is useless

On 2018-Sep-07, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> 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.

Committed on Sep 4th as 17b7c302b5fc.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services