Re: Issue in pg_catalog.pg_indexes view definition

From: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Issue in pg_catalog.pg_indexes view definition
Date: 2016-07-14 17:51:47
Message-ID: 87d1mg2jm4.fsf@credativ.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So I think changing the view definition and calling this function on
>> indexrelid will remove the error. So I think
>> correct fix is to change view definition, as I proposed in above patch.
[...]
> We've dealt with similar issues in places like pg_relation_size() by
> making the functions return NULL instead of throwing an error for an
> unmatched argument OID.

Note that Michael Paquier sent a patch implementing this in another
thread:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTxF5dtxjEzB7xkJvOWxX8D_2atxmTu3PSnkhcWT_JY5A@mail.gmail.com

regards,
andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Seltenreich 2016-07-14 18:04:03 Re: Improving executor performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-07-14 16:32:10 Re: Oddity in handling of cached plans for FDW queries