Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Personally I'm not sold on the sensefulness of the TODO item to begin
> >> with.
> > The current code just drops any index that inludes the dropped column,
> > even if the column is the second column in a multi-column index. Does
> > that seem OK to you?
> What's wrong with it? Any unique constraint the index might have
> carried is no longer interesting, so there's no semantic reason for
> treating the index as an independent object. And queries that might
> have referenced the column aren't going to work anymore, so the query
> mix changes and hence the index setup will really need rethinking anyhow.
> Basically I think this proposal would introduce a weird, confusing
> dichotomy of behavior between single- and multi-column indexes.
> And as Rod pointed out, you'd logically have to do the same for CHECK
> constraints depending on whether they mention one or several columns.
> (And what of multicolumn foreign keys?) I see much confusion ahead,
> and no payback.
I do see the confusion argument, but I also see cases where folks are
losing the use of an index for single-column lookups. Others?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: scott.marlowe||Date: 2003-03-06 18:03:17|
|Subject: Re: Partial index on date column|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-03-06 17:25:48|
|Subject: Re: TODO: DROP COLUMN .. CASCADE |