| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Date: | 2003-09-20 22:06:20 |
| Message-ID: | 29687.1064095580@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Actually, as a comment here, since I *think* I understand where Tom is
> coming from ... and since I've either missed it, or it hasn't been
> answered yet ... why was the original patch incomplete in only addressing
> 1 of 3 REINDEX conditions? Is there a reason why that one condition
> is/was safe to do it with, but not the other 2?
That's exactly what's bothering me. Where I'd like to end up is that
either all three variants of REINDEX allow this, or all three do not.
I don't understand why only REINDEX TABLE should support it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-09-21 03:51:47 | Re: pgsql-server/ rc/backend/catalog/sql_features. ... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-20 21:45:24 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-09-20 23:19:36 | Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-20 21:55:26 | Re: Align large shared memory allocations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2003-09-21 01:02:17 | contrib mode - pgenv |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-20 21:55:26 | Re: Align large shared memory allocations |