X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF4F9DD61C for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:48:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86807-02-9 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:48:15 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5AD9DCE04 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:45:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0C4jnYZ001093; Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:45:49 -0500 (EST) To: K C Lau cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: indexes on primary and foreign keys In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.0.20060112103712.0529cdd0@localhost> References: <1b8a973c0601111438m3e0b1cc0hf9c387a4a1d6791d@mail.gmail.com> <20060111232157.GA88829@winnie.fuhr.org> <6.2.1.2.0.20060112083033.02bb74c8@localhost> <6.2.1.2.0.20060112103712.0529cdd0@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to K C Lau message dated "Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:49:16 +0800" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:45:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1092.1137041149@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.223 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR=0.276] X-Spam-Score: 0.223 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/149 X-Sequence-Number: 16627 K C Lau writes: > Thanks. The side effect is that it would suppress other notices which might > be useful. There's been some discussion of subdividing the present "notice" category into two subclasses, roughly defined as "only novices wouldn't know this" and "maybe this is interesting". What's missing at this point is a concrete proposal as to which existing NOTICE messages should go into each category. If you feel like tackling the project, go for it... regards, tom lane