From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 18:33:11 |
Message-ID: | 7903.1414866791@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
The executor doesn't need to know anything, since the AM can trivially
make aminsert be a no-op if the index is internally invalid. The planner
only needs to know something if we think that silently being slow for a
query meant to search the index is better than throwing an error reminding
the user that the index needs to be reindexed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 18:34:14 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 18:24:28 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |