From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v6.4 |
Date: | 2013-10-18 13:41:59 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yqPEdV88ohUHgM=OF7EqFcF1tj+3iPDoQALju5zh17mQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-18 13:52:18 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |
Previous Message | Tim Kane | 2013-10-18 13:39:45 | Re: removing old ports and architectures |