Re: costly foreign key ri checks (4)

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> * I changed the message wording to conform to the message style
>   guidelines.  I also made it complain about "costly sequential scans"
>   instead of "costly cross-type conversion", since ISTM that's what's
>   really at issue here.  I'm not completely wedded to that wording
>   though, if anyone feels the previous version was better.

So the issue wasn't that the conversion was costly, but that an index
couldn't be used to look up the primary key?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073