From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption |
Date: | 1999-12-29 23:52:22 |
Message-ID: | m123StC-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com> writes:
>
> > I saw the message about lengths in indexes,
> > but howcome this is relevant for procedures?
>
> In 6.5 (and before), there's an index on the prosrc field of pg_proc,
> ie, the definition of the procedure. There's not any real good reason
> to have such an index, so we've removed it for 7.0 ... but in 6.5 it's
> there and it creates problems if you have long procedure definitions :-(
The usage of it is only #ifdef'd out!
It's a very old standing FEATURE, that doesn't work anyhow.
It has to do with tuple set's, and as far as I read the code
in question, the (no longer supported either) nested dot
notation looked for a 'sql' language function returning a set
of tuples and created that on the fly. Therefore, it checked
by the required functions source text if it exists.
IIRC the #ifdef is somewhat like SETS_FIXED.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sszabo | 1999-12-29 23:59:18 | Re: [HACKERS] correlated subquery |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-12-29 23:27:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption |