Hi, sorry for posting style,
--
dim
Le 23 déc. 2009 à 23:58, Jeff Davis a écrit :
Honestly, I've never used LIKE in a table definition aside from one-
off
design experiments. For that kind of thing, what I want is to just get
everything (except perhaps FKs if the above situation applies),
Jeff Davis wrote:
...
> Honestly, I've never used LIKE in a table definition aside from one-off
> design experiments. For that kind of thing, what I want is to just get
> everything (except perhaps FKs if the above situation applies), and I
> adjust it from there. Are there people out there who u
Jeff Davis writes:
> Honestly, I've never used LIKE in a table definition aside from one-off
> design experiments. For that kind of thing, what I want is to just get
> everything (except perhaps FKs if the above situation applies), and I
> adjust it from there. Are there people out there who use L
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the most natural reading of the syntax
> would be "INCLUDING INDEXES means to include everything you made
> with CREATE INDEX syntax, while INCLUDING CONSTRAINTS means to
> include everything you made with CONSTRAINT syntax".
Agreed.
>
In connection with the operator-exclusion patch,
Brendan Jurd wrote:
> * What to do about INCLUDING INDEXES EXCLUDING CONSTRAINTS --
> Postgres gets this wrong for unique indexes currently. Should we
> persist with the existing behaviour or fix it as part of this patch?
> My personal feeling was
