:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:13 PM
To: Alvaro Herrera
Cc: Lawrence Cohan; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4238: pg_class.relhasindex not updated by
vacuum
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lawrence Cohan wrote:
>> In that case t
Message-
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:57 PM
To: Lawrence Cohan
Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4238: pg_class.relhasindex not updated by
vacuum
Lawrence Cohan wrote:
> Isn't a PK a CONSTRAINT and not
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lawrence Cohan wrote:
>> In that case the two separate pg_class relhasindex and relhaspkey would
>> make sense indeed - just a thought nothing else and we'll take it as is.
> What would be the point? If you want to figure out whether a table has
> a pr
Lawrence Cohan wrote:
> Isn't a PK a CONSTRAINT and not an INDEX???
Sure, from a logical point of view. The implementation of that
constraint is an index.
> In that case the two separate pg_class relhasindex and relhaspkey would
> make sense indeed - just a thought nothing else and we'll take it
from pg_class where relname = 'foo';
-
t
(1 row)
drop table foo;
Many thanks,
Lawrence Cohan.
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Cohan
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:57 AM
To: 'Tom Lane'
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [BUGS] BUG #4238: pg_c
: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:33 PM
To: Lawrence Cohan
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4238: pg_class.relhasindex not updated by
vacuum
"Lawrence Cohan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible that because of the PKEY's we have on the tables that
> f
on
we are on in production is 8.2.5 not 8.3 yet.
Thanks,
Lawrence Cohan.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:44 AM
To: Lawrence Cohan
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4238: pg_class.relhasindex not updated by
vac
"Lawrence Cohan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible that because of the PKEY's we have on the tables that
> flag is still showing "true"?
Uh, well certainly -- a PK is an index.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
T
"Lawrence Cohan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We rely on this column to build a list of tables restricted to only those
> that have indexes to be rebuilt with CONCURRENTLY however the column is not
> updated as documentation says by the vacuum. After a successful
> analyze/vacuum/analyze against t
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 4238
Logged by: Lawrence Cohan
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.5
Operating system: Linux 4.1.1
Description:pg_class.relhasindex not updated by vacuum
Details:
We rely on this column to
10 matches
Mail list logo
