"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Anybody else have an opinion? > > Better slow than wrong in this case. > > The "better to break obviously than subtly" argument doesn't hold here, > because > "slow" isn't the same as broken, and returning extra incorrect rows isn't > "obviously" :-).
We're talking about code which is recompiled for a new version of Postgres but not altered to return the recheck flag for every tuple? Can we rig the code so it effectively returns recheck=true all the time in that case? If so then it would be safe to ignore the recheck flag on the opclass. There's no danger of picking up code which was actually compiled with older header files after all, the magic numbers wouldn't match if it's V1 and in any case I would expect it to crash long before any mistaken tuples were returned. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
