Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Date: 2014-11-01 18:24:28
Message-ID: 20141101182428.GJ17790@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-11-01 14:19:22 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Isn't the planner still going to try to use the index in that case? If it's
> not then I'd be OK with it, but if it's going to make the table largely
> unusable until it's reindexed that would be rather sad.

Both the planner (for querying) and the executor (to avoid inserting
tuples into the index) would have to query the state of such indexes. I
don't think it can reasonably work otherwise.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-11-01 18:33:11 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-11-01 18:23:07 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices