Re: [HACKERS] Index corruption

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) #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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