| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect format in error message |
| Date: | 2016-04-01 07:30:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20160401073008.GC9074@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-01 20:18:29 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On 1 April 2016 at 17:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> The attached fixes an error message which is incorrectly using an
> >> unsigned format specifier instead of a signed one.
> >
> > Really though, what
> > astonishes me about this example is that we allow indexes at all on
> > system columns other than OID. None of the other ones can possibly
> > have either a use-case or sensible semantics, can they? We certainly
> > would not stop to update indexes after changing xmax, for example.
>
> As for this part. I really don't see how we could disable this without
> breaking pg_restore for database who have such indexes. My best
> thought is to add some sort of warning during CREATE INDEX, like we do
> for HASH indexes.
As they're currently already not working correctly as indexes, I don't
see throwing an error during pg_restore as being overly harmful.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-04-01 08:20:10 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-04-01 07:18:29 | Re: Incorrect format in error message |