"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How would this affect changing the type of a column?
It doesn't, because we drop and rebuild indexes completely during ALTER
COLUMN TYPE.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> But you couldn't make any meaningful changes in the definition of an
> >> index, such as changing its column set, operator classes, partial-index
> >> pre
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The concerns that I find more interesting are changes in the underlying
> objects. We don't have an ALTER OPERATOR CLASS, much less an ALTER
> ACCESS METHOD, but it's certainly theoretically possible to change the
> definition of a suppor
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But you couldn't make any meaningful changes in the definition of an
>> index, such as changing its column set, operator classes, partial-index
>> predicate, etc, except by dropping and recreating it.
> The only examp
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would still support REINDEX (which changes pg_class.relfilenode in
> order to replace the physical file) and ALTER INDEX SET TABLESPACE.
> But you couldn't make any meaningful changes in the definition of an
> index, such as changing its column set, ope
