Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5816: index not used in function

From: "frank" <frank(at)ros-i(dot)com>
To: "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "'Korry Douglas'" <korry(dot)douglas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,"'Kevin Grittner'" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>,<pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #5816: index not used in function
Date: 2011-01-14 00:14:21
Message-ID: 000001cbb37f$fe5a2450$6900a8c0@frank (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Thanks for the reply.

It should always be understood that things could be much more complex
than meets the eye. I am not warranted to demand or expect anything.

The work-around does not work for me, but that is a different issue. I
have no right to lecture anybody, only that sometimes one tends to
forget some basics. Me no exception.

My concern was the impression I got on the finding of an excuse, which I
do not believe was deliberate. Again, I was not searching for "best
possible". The problem is some fundamental issue. I have not seen the
code or the design, I do not know for sure. But if planner was called at
run time for all (or almost all) query statements inside the function,
then it is a big design/implementation issue.

Once again, I appreciate the messages from all three of you who try to
help people, and I understand the difficulty people face.


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:10 AM
To: frank
Cc: Korry Douglas; Kevin Grittner; pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5816: index not used in function

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:07 PM, frank <frank(at)ros-i(dot)com> wrote:
> More can be said, but why one wants to defend a defect is quite beyond

I guess the question is whether you want to solve your problem or
improve PostgreSQL.  If you want to solve your immediate problem, the
advice given thus far is probably enough for you to do it.  If the
goal is to improve PostgreSQL, that's a worthy goal and I don't think
anyone here would say otherwise.  The current behavior is not ideal,
but improving it is not easy.

When people say "it's not a bug", they don't mean "this is the best
possible behavior anyone can imagine"; they mean "we know that it
works this way and we haven't actually figured out a way to do any
better yet without causing other problems".

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Murray S. KucherawyDate: 2011-01-14 01:36:29
Subject: BUG #5837: PQstatus() fails to report lost connection
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-13 18:43:23
Subject: Re: BUG #5836: Enum Support Functions don't work on empty tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group