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