That's the answer I was seeking. So it's case closed for both of my « Two questions about "pg_constraint" ». Thanks, Tom. And thanks to the others who've contributed to this thread.
t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: > b...@yugabyte.com writes: > > My other question was about the "connamespace" column. It seemed to me, both > at first and still now, that this is a clear instance of a transitive > dependency. I think a more productive way to think about it is that it's denormalization for efficiency; specifically to let constraints be looked up by name+namespace without having to get other catalogs involved. (SET CONSTRAINTS is one thing that requires that, and I think there are others.)
