On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I don't recall what the problem with just swapping the names was - but >> I'm pretty sure there was one... Hm. The index relation oids are >> referred to by constraints and dependencies. That's somewhat >> solvable. But I think there was something else as well... > The reason given 2 years ago for not using relname was the fast that > the oid of the index changes, and to it be refered by some pg_depend > entries: Feel free to correct: "and that it could be referred". -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
