On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> ISTM there are two ways we could fix this: >>> >>> 1. Introduce a duplicative test at the start of gistbuild(). >>> >>> 2. Rearrange the order of operations in index_build() so that the init >>> fork is made first. >>> >>> Both of these are kinda ugly, but #2 puts the ugliness into someplace >>> that shouldn't have to know about it, and furthermore someplace that's >>> unlikely to get reverted if/when gist is fixed to not have this problem. >>> So I think I favor #1. Other opinions anyone? > >> I don't think I understand your object to #2. It appears to be a >> trivial rearrangement? > > Yeah, but then we are wiring into index_build the idea that ambuildempty > is more important, or more likely to throw an error, or something, than > ambuild is. It seems weird. And fragile, since somebody could decide > to re-order those two steps again for reasons unrelated to gist.
I guess. I think the compelling reason to do ambuildempty first is that it's fast. So might as well. I think you'e just going to end up hard-wiring the assumption that ambuild happens before ambuildempty, which doesn't seem any better than the other way around, but I don't care enough to argue about if you feel strongly about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
