Re: Index Administration: pg_index vs. pg_get_indexdef()
От | Thomas F. O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Index Administration: pg_index vs. pg_get_indexdef() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 545521C7-C1E0-4565-A077-E8BC1E3C6FB9@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Index Administration: pg_index vs. pg_get_indexdef() (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Nov 22, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes: >> In an old thread <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2004-01/ >> msg00271.php>, Tom Lane suggested that it would be "unreasonable" to >> use pg_index to reconstruct (expressional) indexes (in 7.4). The >> suggested alternative was to use pg_get_indexdef(). > > IIRC, the point I was trying to make was that making client code > try to > interpret the contents of pg_index.indexprs or pg_index.indpred is a > losing proposition. If you feel that you'd rather read the other > fields > of pg_index for yourself, I won't argue with you. Yeah, I took a look at pg_index.indexprs and have already Perled up a parser for the pg_get_indexdef() output... :) Out of curiosity (without much knowledge of how pg_get_indexdef() generates its output), would it be difficult to allow the view to have a more useful format? What is the intention of providing an expression tree? How could that be used? -- Thomas F. O'Connell Database Architecture and Programming Co-Founder Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 Nashville, TN 37203-6320 615-469-5150 615-469-5151 (fax)
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: