On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:42 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > This had already been committed as 270af6f0df76 (the day before it was > sent to the next commitfest). This commit wasn't included in the > reverted set, though, so you still get deferrable PKs from > RelationGetIndexList. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, > though these don't have any usefulness as things stand (and if we deal > with PKs by forcing not-null constraints to be underneath, then we won't > need them either).
So, are you saying this should be marked Committed in the commitfest? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
