"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just discovered that an index that doesn't refer to any of its table's
> columns isn't automatically dropped when its table is.
I've applied a patch for this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-11/msg00137.php
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:00:43AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not sure that's enough of a use case to justify not banning it...
>
> Yeah, it probably is.
It's reasonably easy to do this instead:
CREATE TABLE foo (
one INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Please explain how you thought it would help you do that, because
>> without some evidence that there's a use-case, I'm inclined to fix it
>> as above ...
> Note that it was a unique index:
Missed that --- obviously need more caf
Tom Lane wrote:
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
p.s. the reason for creating this strange index was to ensure that a maximum
of one row was inserted into the table---I can do this different ways for
now.
Please explain how you thought it would help you do that, because
without some evi
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just discovered that an index that doesn't refer to any of its table's
> columns isn't automatically dropped when its table is.
A straightforward solution would be to ban such "indexes".
> p.s. the reason for creating this strange index was to ensure
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3723
Logged by: Sam Mason
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.5
Operating system: Linux
Description:dropping an index that doesn't refer to table's columns
Details:
Hi,
I've just discover
