On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Hm. I don't really see a point in allowing it - it seems more likely to > be a mistake by the user, expecting that the insertion now works > conflict free. But I don't really care much.
The only downside I see is that it might not work in preventing the statement from proceeding. In other words, you might have a partial unique index style inference clause (i.e. with a predicate) that infers a non-partial index, because everything else matches, and no predicate (on the index) satisfies the inference predicate. So it comes down to the actual definition of indexes, as opposed to the statement that inferred those indexes, which isn't quite the same thing. It is hardly really a defect at all, but it is something I have considered as a little confusing. However, I doubt that many people will ever find themselves looking for an explanation for this. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
