| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2014-07-10 21:29:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20140710212934.GX6390@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 12:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> So I guess the only thing left is to issue a NOTICE when said alter
> >> > takes place (I don't see that on the patch, but maybe it's there?)
> > That's not in the patch. I don't think we have an appropriate place to
> > emit such a notice.
>
> What do you mean by "don't have an appropriate place"?
What I think should happen is that if the value is changed, the index
sholud be rebuilt right there. But there is no way to have this occur
from the generic tablecmds.c code. Maybe we should extend the AM
interface so that they are notified of changes and can take action.
Inserting AM-specific code into tablecmds.c seems pretty wrong to me --
existing stuff for WITH CHECK OPTION views notwithstanding.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2014-07-10 21:30:32 | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-07-10 21:25:33 | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |