On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > The only downside I see is that it might not work in preventing the > statement from proceeding. In other words, you might have a partial > unique index style inference clause (i.e. with a predicate) that > infers a non-partial index, because everything else matches, and no > predicate (on the index) satisfies the inference predicate. So it > comes down to the actual definition of indexes, as opposed to the > statement that inferred those indexes, which isn't quite the same > thing.
Hmm. I think it might be inconsistent with our position on NULL values with this feature - which is that insertion will always proceed - to deny insertion from proceeding here. On reflection, it seems like a bit of a POLA violation. So I'm going to remove the error. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
