From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cascading column drop to index predicates |
Date: | 2003-12-22 15:55:44 |
Message-ID: | 16313.1072108544@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> In that sample mentioned the index might be used mostly with a,b
> columns. Dropping the index silently might damage the application
> because it relies on an (a,b) index to be present. IMHO only Indexes
> that span that single column should be dropped without CASCADE.
That argument makes no sense to me at all. If you drop the *column*
a or b, and do not thereby break your application, how is the
disappearance of the index on it going to break anything? The index
is meaningless without something to index.
I think the question at hand is whether the same logic applies to
partial indexes: if the index's condition is no longer meaningful, is
the index meaningful? I think we can handle both cases the same way.
But clearly an index condition isn't quite the same thing as an index
column, so maybe someone can make a good argument for treating them
differently.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-12-22 16:02:58 | Re: cascading column drop to index predicates |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-22 15:48:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Current Win32 port status |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-12-22 16:02:58 | Re: cascading column drop to index predicates |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-22 15:48:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Current Win32 port status |