Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZSBEqkTLYBvJYXjUcyt2BJLyBRWC2CmriZYGW9FwAxZHA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write > assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going > *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an > assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just > a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all. You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this, IMV. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: