On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@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