On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:24 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > SELECT FROM table WHERE my_func('table', ctid) ==> 'index condition'
>
> Um, why's the ctid important here, or perhaps more directly, what is
> it you're really trying to do?
>
This function is defined as my_func(regclass, tid) and simply
Eric Ridge writes:
> I've got an extension that's actually a custom Access Method, and for
> reasons that are probably too boring to go into here, it requires that the
> first column in the index be a function that takes the ctid. Ie, something
> akin to:
>CREATE INDEX idx ON table (my_func('
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Pushed. I moved the check into DefineIndex, as that's where user-facing
> complaints about indexes generally ought to be.
>
If you're planning on back-patching this, please don't. :) It'll
literally ruin my life.
I've got an extension that
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:43, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached patch just disallows any index containing a system
>> column, apart from OID.
> Seems I only did half the job as I forgot to think to check for system
> columns that are hidden away inside expressions or predica
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-15 11:49:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what we should do with this is split it into two patches, one
>> to fix ALTER REPLICA IDENTITY's crash (which we'd back-patch to 9.4)
>> and one to forbid indexes on system columns (which IMO should be HEAD
>> only).
On 2016-04-15 11:49:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think what we should do with this is split it into two patches, one
> to fix ALTER REPLICA IDENTITY's crash (which we'd back-patch to 9.4)
> and one to forbid indexes on system columns (which IMO should be HEAD
> only). The first of those should be
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:43, David Rowley wrote:
>> The attached patch just disallows any index containing a system
>> column, apart from OID.
> Seems I only did half the job as I forgot to think to check for system
> columns that are hidden away inside expressions or predic
On 15 April 2016 at 13:43, David Rowley wrote:
> The attached patch just disallows any index containing a system
> column, apart from OID.
Seems I only did half the job as I forgot to think to check for system
columns that are hidden away inside expressions or predicates.
The attached fixes that
On 15 April 2016 at 13:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> On 15 April 2016 at 13:30, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> What'd be the point of indexing ctid, and why would it be correct?
>>> Wouldn't, hm, HOT break it?
>
>> I don't personally see the point.
>
> An index on ctid is useless by de
David Rowley writes:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:30, Andres Freund wrote:
>> What'd be the point of indexing ctid, and why would it be correct?
>> Wouldn't, hm, HOT break it?
> I don't personally see the point.
An index on ctid is useless by definition: if you know the ctid of
a tuple, you can jus
On 15 April 2016 at 13:30, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-15 13:26:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> On 15 April 2016 at 13:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > David Rowley writes:
>> >> I proposed a fix over there, but it didn't go anywhere, probably
>> >> because Tom and Andres discussed just disallowi
On 2016-04-15 13:26:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 15 April 2016 at 13:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David Rowley writes:
> >> I proposed a fix over there, but it didn't go anywhere, probably
> >> because Tom and Andres discussed just disallowing unique indexes on
> >> system columns altogether. So
On 15 April 2016 at 13:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
>> I proposed a fix over there, but it didn't go anywhere, probably
>> because Tom and Andres discussed just disallowing unique indexes on
>> system columns altogether. So, the attached patch does just that, and
>> also fixes up th
On 2016-04-14 21:02:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > I proposed a fix over there, but it didn't go anywhere, probably
> > because Tom and Andres discussed just disallowing unique indexes on
> > system columns altogether. So, the attached patch does just that, and
> > also fixes
David Rowley writes:
> I proposed a fix over there, but it didn't go anywhere, probably
> because Tom and Andres discussed just disallowing unique indexes on
> system columns altogether. So, the attached patch does just that, and
> also fixes up the replica identity bugs too, as it's still possibl
Hi,
Over in [1], while I was aiming to fix some incorrect formatting in an
error message, Tom noticed that the code in that area was much more
broken than I had thought.
Basically, if you do;
postgres=# create table t (a int) with oids;
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# create unique index t_oid_idx on t(
16 matches
Mail list logo
