Detailed index predicate with \d on indexes in psql

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Detailed index predicate with \d on indexes in psql
Date: 2001-11-13 16:45:26
Message-ID: 200111131645.LAA16516@hall.mail.mindspring.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(This is using 7.2b1)

Anyone know why I am getting the "internal form" of the
partial-index predicate? In other words, instead of
getting something like this (thanks Tom):

regression=# \d apple
Index "apple"
Column | Type
- ---------+---------
topping | integer
hash
Index predicate: (topping > 99)

I get something like this:

Index "apple"
Column | Type
- ---------+---------
topping | integer
hash for table "pizza" WHERE (topping > 2000)
Index predicate: ({ EXPR :typeOid 16 :opType op :oper { OPER :opno 521 :opid 14
7 :opresulttype 16 } :args ({ VAR :varno 1 :varattno 3 :vartype 23 :vartypmod -1
:varlevelsup 0 :varnoold 1 :varoattno 3} { CONST :consttype 23 :constlen 4 :co
nstbyval true :constisnull false :constvalue 4 [ 99 0 0 0 ] })})

Doing a:

SELECT c.relname, i.indpred
FROM pg_index i, pg_class c
WHERE c.oid = i.indexrelid
and i.indpred like '(%'

reveals that this is happening to every partial index I
create.

I'm also wondering if we even need the "Index predicate:"
section at all? When it works properly, will it ever give
more information than what the tail end of pg_get_indexdef
returns? If it gives the same, is one preferred over the other?

Thanks,
Greg Sabino Mullane
greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200111131146

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iQA/AwUBO/FOorybkGcUlkrIEQL9KACgyJu7YFWCjJQPwEL32yjhmegocRYAn1iC
4djb4ZoOkrSDePXJ6rsQcSCW
=M66f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-13 17:33:15 Re: Quick question
Previous Message Brent Verner 2001-11-13 12:51:34 Re: Quick question