| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Khee Chin <kheechin(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Ricardo Bessa <ricardobessa(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Show method of index |
| Date: | 2009-05-11 23:30:09 |
| Message-ID: | 2682.1242084609@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> Index "public.fooi"
>> Column | Type | Definition
>> -----------------+---------+------------
>> f1 | integer | f1
>> pg_expression_2 | integer | (f2+f3)
> Is there any reason to expose "pg_expression_2" to the user at all?
Perhaps not, but if they did have a reason to access the individual
index column then they'd need to know its name. I admit that there
may not be any such reason at present, but do you want to find us
having to change the definition back again sometime in the future?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-11 23:33:56 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-11 23:25:44 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |