Tom Lane wrote: > > * I changed the message wording to conform to the message style > guidelines. I also made it complain about "costly sequential scans" > instead of "costly cross-type conversion", since ISTM that's what's > really at issue here. I'm not completely wedded to that wording > though, if anyone feels the previous version was better.
So the issue wasn't that the conversion was costly, but that an index couldn't be used to look up the primary key? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
