I'm not anxious to see it back-patched.
On 07/30/2018 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Sargent writes:
Exactly. That that is in the "box" made me think a similar blurb for
the non-index version should be there also.
This seems to have been fixed in v11 but not back-patched.
Rob Sargent writes:
> Exactly. That that is in the "box" made me think a similar blurb for
> the non-index version should be there also.
This seems to have been fixed in v11 but not back-patched.
regards, tom lane
OK, I was expecting a block in the enclosing text-area for this
simple form of the command similar to the one for the /using_index/
form. I suppose the existence of the latter lead me to expect the
former. If it's as intended I'm fine with that.
Aah I see, you where referring to:
"and t
On 07/30/2018 02:24 PM, Rob Sargent wrote:
On 07/30/2018 03:07 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 07/30/2018 09:57 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
I was just looking up alter table add constraint syntax under
"current(10)" and we get
ADD /table_constraint/ [ NOT VALID ]
ADD /table_constrai
On 07/30/2018 03:07 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 07/30/2018 09:57 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
I was just looking up alter table add constraint syntax under
"current(10)" and we get
ADD /table_constraint/ [ NOT VALID ]
ADD /table_constraint_using_index/
There is a description belo
On 07/30/2018 09:57 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
I was just looking up alter table add constraint syntax under
"current(10)" and we get
ADD /table_constraint/ [ NOT VALID ]
ADD /table_constraint_using_index/
There is a description below for the using_index version but none for
the
