| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX |
| Date: | 2001-07-14 00:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20010714103628.B11863@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 06:34:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Let's drop the meta-discussions and cut to the chase: given that we are
> > about to re-enable partial indexes, should we try to make EXTEND INDEX
> > work too, or just remove it?
>
> We don't let people add columns to an existing index so I don't see why
> we should have EXTEND INDEX unless index twiddling is more common with
> partial indexes.
We don't allow people currently to fiddle with indices at all. I don't
understand the origin of EXTEND INDEX since I can't think of a situation
where it would actually be useful.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
http://svana.org/kleptog/
> It would be nice if someone came up with a certification system that
> actually separated those who can barely regurgitate what they crammed over
> the last few weeks from those who command secret ninja networking powers.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-14 00:57:08 | Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-07-14 00:34:06 | Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-14 00:57:08 | Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-07-14 00:34:06 | Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX |