Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 546FBE05.7070602@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/21/14, 9:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> writes: >> There is also the possibility to add syntax like this: >> CREATE OR REPLACE [FORCE] FUNCTION ... >> What do you think about that? It would protect the casual user but allow >> the expert to do it anyway. > > I don't see any great attraction to that. Given what this would do to someone's data, and our general stance on not hurting data, I'm a bit surprised that we don'twant to do something here. Especially since we did go down this route with disallowing indexes on timestamptz castedto date, which seriously impacts a lot of reporting scenarios. I fully agree that it's impractical to completely restrict this case, but something akin to FORCE seems reasonable. If nothingelse, I'd think we should at least issue a warning if someone does something that might affect index viability. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: