On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 8:58 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:19 PM James Coleman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:51 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > > > Updated.
> > >
> > > This version looks fine to me. If nobody obj
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:19 PM James Coleman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:51 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > > Updated.
> >
> > This version looks fine to me. If nobody objects I will commit it and
> > credit myself as a co-author.
>
> S
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 3:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:51 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > Updated.
>
> This version looks fine to me. If nobody objects I will commit it and
> credit myself as a co-author.
Sounds great; thanks again for the review.
James Coleman
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:51 AM James Coleman wrote:
> Updated.
This version looks fine to me. If nobody objects I will commit it and
credit myself as a co-author.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:29 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:14 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > Is the attached more along the lines of what you were thinking?
>
> Yeah. Maybe this would be a little clearer: "For example, if the
> collation for a column has been changed, an inde
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:14 AM James Coleman wrote:
> Is the attached more along the lines of what you were thinking?
Yeah. Maybe this would be a little clearer: "For example, if the
collation for a column has been changed, an index rebuild is always
required, because the new sort order might b
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:43 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:17 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > All right, thanks for feedback. Attached is v2 with such a change.
> > I've not included examples, and I'm about 50/50 on doing so. What are
> > your thoughts on adding in parens "e.g.,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:17 AM James Coleman wrote:
> All right, thanks for feedback. Attached is v2 with such a change.
> I've not included examples, and I'm about 50/50 on doing so. What are
> your thoughts on adding in parens "e.g., changing from varchar to text
> avoids rebuilding indexes whi
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:41 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:33 PM James Coleman wrote:
> > Hmm, having it match the way it works makes sense. Would you feel
> > comfortable with an intermediate step (queueing up that as a larger
> > change) changing the clause to something li
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:33 PM James Coleman wrote:
> Hmm, having it match the way it works makes sense. Would you feel
> comfortable with an intermediate step (queueing up that as a larger
> change) changing the clause to something like "indexes will still have
> to be rebuilt unless the system
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 11:41 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 AM James Coleman wrote:
> > Admittedly I hadn't thought of that case. But isn't it already covered
> > in the existing docs by the phrase "or an unconstrained domain over
> > the new type"? I don't love the word
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 AM James Coleman wrote:
> Admittedly I hadn't thought of that case. But isn't it already covered
> in the existing docs by the phrase "or an unconstrained domain over
> the new type"? I don't love the word "or" there because there's a
> sense in which the first clause
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:29 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 16:04, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > Back in 367bc42 (for 9.2!) we "avoid[ed] index rebuild[ing] for
> > no-rewrite ALTER TABLE
> > .. ALTER TYPE." However the docs still claim that "a table rewrite is
> > not
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 16:04, James Coleman wrote:
>
> Back in 367bc42 (for 9.2!) we "avoid[ed] index rebuild[ing] for
> no-rewrite ALTER TABLE
> .. ALTER TYPE." However the docs still claim that "a table rewrite is
> not needed; but any indexes on the affected columns must still be
> rebuilt."
A
Back in 367bc42 (for 9.2!) we "avoid[ed] index rebuild[ing] for
no-rewrite ALTER TABLE
.. ALTER TYPE." However the docs still claim that "a table rewrite is
not needed; but any indexes on the affected columns must still be
rebuilt."
I've attached a simple patch to update the docs to match the curr
15 matches
Mail list logo
