Re: logical changeset generation v6.4

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached you can find version 6.4 of the patchset:
>
> So I'm still unhappy with the arbitrary logic in what's now patch 1
> for choosing the candidate key. On another thread, someone mentioned
> that they might want the entire old tuple, and that got me thinking:
> there's no particular reason why the user has to want exactly the
> columns that exist in some unique, immediate, non-partial index (what
> a name). So I have two proposals:

Aside: what's an immediate index? Is this speaking to the constraint?
(immediate vs deferred?)

merlin