From: | "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Plan invalidation design |
Date: | 2007-02-21 22:20:51 |
Message-ID: | 1172096451.546679.179580@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 18, 9:35 am, t(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) wrote:
> Russell Smith <mr-r(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>
> > If you replan and immutable function, aren't you possibly messing up a
> > functional index that is using the old function. Hey, if you change an
> > immutable function that has an index, you are in trouble already.
>
> True.
While I agree that if you change an immutable function used by an
index, your index will break, I do not understand how re-planning it
will cause problems. Is the worry that the index will not pick up on
the new plan?
Andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-21 22:29:48 | Re: [previously on HACKERS] "Compacting" a relation |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-21 22:16:02 | Re: [previously on HACKERS] "Compacting" a relation |