MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+FnnTz7+dbyk5Gn2iM-eo1Xvfax15yjBevmCCfvo0-UVW1K7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3f6ecfb-8772-4e15-a772-8e64fb573d49@aklaver.com>
 <CAKFQuwYswndGOm6vnsoNSTWHEC5d29bvYokymtDEY_cyW54FEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+FnnTyFVn4Ebx9kP-5vooZwpATwV5Euc8Nt6TGmEuR6oDYd9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3547f40b-08b9-4d0c-bba8-f1c26d0bf09d@aklaver.com>
 <CA+FnnTwLvp1wweqWJkw1+sg4x+pM_oGVmfc-3TaPpE_557=A_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c31c118-7f8a-4359-9c4f-4cabd9df4262@aklaver.com>
 <CA+FnnTx5WZeYwg-OFwvbipvHRJP263UP8EVNY0aGMu6E_XuKsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7461c77a-4536-4f53-b951-99b9ca33db79@aklaver.com>
 <CA+FnnTw+HhguiTO27hzTUTU6uRBY_wRRwB=xT+7=t_0CdrCsoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <105a9d1a-c219-401a-9b81-4d77dde901f5@aklaver.com>
 <da939085-813e-4505-880d-aafa91c8509d@aklaver.com>
 <CA+FnnTxh0ZvsaKvkpg7OLQBVhhicsv2u+uk9d0jf+qmF5q=YTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f61e570d-73a2-49b2-a612-09d94e9f794e@aklaver.com>
 <CA+FnnTzXK876siRuPhqav59SmzTSZUYmo9vGqffRn8g0Vr9f8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <e612ab0e-37c9-4dc2-8cec-9c5fe9baf284@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <e612ab0e-37c9-4dc2-8cec-9c5fe9baf284@aklaver.com>
From: Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 18:11:26 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+FnnTyH7Hp2tO03UnLE_cpZ_rerdttV02_gVBxM5jiz3Z2GSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does included columns part of the PK
To: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BFnnTyH7Hp2tO03UnLE_cpZ_rerdttV02_gVBxM5jiz3Z2GSg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Adrian,,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 5:44=E2=80=AFPM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklave=
r.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/16/26 4:38 PM, Igor Korot wrote:
> > Adrian,
> >
> > Most important - do you agree that those fields should not be in this
> > recordset?
>
> I don't see anything here:
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/odbc/reference/syntax/sqlprimarykey=
s-function?view=3Dsql-server-ver17
>
> that says they should be returned. Though the above also says:
>
> " Additional columns beyond column 6 (PK_NAME) can be defined by the
> driver."
>
> That is not the case here, where additional rows are used. However it
> does allow for more information to be supplied.
>
> My purely un-expert analysis is, no the extra rows should not be there.

Thx for confirming.

I already forwarded the email with the query results over to ODBC list.

Hopefully someone can come back soon.

Are you reading that list as well? If not I will update this thread
with the results.

Thank you.

>
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian.klaver@aklaver.com