=== on 11 Jan 2016, 16:35:48 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
This rule should catch issues on primary keys, but also on partitioning indexes. This is reflected in the message, but not in the current description.

=== on 14 Jan 2016, 16:32:30 Elena Vilchik wrote:
 IMO table name ``++ROW++`` is confusing

=== on 25 Jan 2016, 15:27:48 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
It seems that checking partitioning columns is more related to performance. Maybe we could add a rule parameter to deactivate that part of the check.

=== on 26 Jan 2016, 14:41:36 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
In fact, we should think about creating a separate rule to check partitioning columns since the motivation is not the same ("performance" vs "data related reliability").

