Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (thinks...) Actually, u for unique might be a poor choice if Jeff's
>> patch goes in and starts using it for things that aren't exactly
>> unique indexes. Should it be just conindid?
> My thoughts exactly.
On looking closer, it appears we should populate this column for FKEY
constraints too --- for example this would greatly simplify some
of the information_schema views (cf _pg_underlying_index).
Now those references will also point at unique indexes, but still this
seems like another reason to use a relatively generic column name.
conindid it is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
