On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Matthew Dennis wrote: > >> I have no doubt that someone would complain about it, but I think it's >> better than the alternative. >> > > Determining if changing any function will cause an index to break is not a > straight-forward problem. I don't believe that PG right now keeps a graph > of which functions call which, so replacing a function deep in the logical > calling hierarchy could break the index as easily as one mentioned at the > top. > Yes, I can see that would indeed be a problem. Are there future plans to start tracking such dependencies? It seems like it would be a good idea in general.
