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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 19:08:00
Message-ID: 8724.1414868880@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> The real question here is whether the table should continue to be usable
> in a degraded state until it's reindexed.

It certainly will be, as long as your notion of "usable in a degraded
state" doesn't include issuing queries that would prefer to use the broken
index. The discussion is about what exactly should happen if you do that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-11-01 19:11:40 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-11-01 19:05:52 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices