Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> That is a +1 for the specific design of "check SELECT on the index's
> table". I don't want to be closed-minded: if you have some strong
> reason for believing that's the wrong thing to do, I'm all ears.
> However, I'm presently of the view that it is exactly the right thing
> to do, to the point where I don't currently understand why there's
> anything to think about here.
I have no objection to it, but I wasn't as entirely convinced
as you are that it's the only plausible answer.
One specific thing I'm slightly worried about is that a naive
implementation would probably cause this function to lock the
table after the index, risking deadlock against queries that
take the locks in the more conventional order. I don't recall
what if anything we've done about that in other places
(-ENOCAFFEINE).
regards, tom lane
