On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
