Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: 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: 2017-02-27 13:40:26
Message-ID: ca0cb275-0db1-8a40-c5e5-0a1e55bdd4b9@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/16/17 08:13, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> @@ -629,7 +630,7 @@ static Node *makeRecursiveViewSelect(char *relname, List *aliases, Node *query);
>
> HANDLER HAVING HEADER_P HOLD HOUR_P
>
> - 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
> INCLUDING INCREMENT INDEX INDEXES INHERIT INHERITS INITIALLY INLINE_P
> INNER_P INOUT INPUT_P INSENSITIVE INSERT INSTEAD INT_P INTEGER
> INTERSECT INTERVAL INTO INVOKER IS ISNULL ISOLATION

I think your syntax would read no worse, possibly even better, if you
just used the existing INCLUDING keyword.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-02-27 13:48:26 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-02-27 13:38:04 Re: bytea_output output of base64