On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 23:22 +0000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> If an index depends on no columns of its table, give it a dependency on the
> whole table instead, to ensure that it goes away when the table is dropped.
> Per bug #3723 from Sam Mason.
>
> Backpatch as far as 7.4; AFAICT 7.3 does not have the issue, because it doesn't
> have general-purpose expression indexes and so there must be at least one
> column referenced by an index.
>
I had understood the discussion to conclude that indexes that do not
depend on any column of the table to not be allowed at all.
Why would anyone want this? (There was a workaround to the original
thought). What value is there in allowing such strange cases?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com