Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed
От | Albe Laurenz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17DA379F@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote: > > I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to > > questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to protect > > the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or is it more important to > > provide a well honed scalpel for the experienced surgeon? > > +1. > > I think if we had an already-existing prohibition here and you > proposed relaxing it, the howls would be equally loud. We're not > entirely consistent about how picky we are. 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. Another thing I thought about is changing function volatility: If you change the volatility of a function used in an index to anything other than IMMUTABLE, your database will continue to work as expected, but a dump will fail to restore with ERROR: functions in index expression must be marked IMMUTABLE Is that something worth checking for? Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: