From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |
Date: | 2016-07-27 02:03:07 |
Message-ID: | 5265.1469584987@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/25/16 3:26 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> The issue I ran into was the exact same one as in the JDBC thread I
>> linked to earlier: correctly interpreting pg_index.indoption (to get the
>> ASC / DESC and NULLS FIRST/LAST settings), which requires knowing
>> whether amcanorder is true to determine whether to look at the bits at
>> all.
> Maybe we should provide a facility to decode those bits then?
Yeah. I'm not very impressed by the underlying assumption that it's
okay for client-side code to hard-wire knowledge about what indoption
bits mean, but not okay for it to hard-wire knowledge about which index
AMs use which indoption bits. There's something fundamentally wrong
in that. We don't let psql or pg_dump look directly at indoption, so
why would we think that third-party client-side code should do so?
Andrew complained upthread that pg_get_indexdef() was too heavyweight
for his purposes, but it's not clear to me what he wants instead.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-27 02:14:54 | Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-27 01:44:55 | Re: MSVC pl-perl error message is not verbose enough |