| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving the names generated for indexes on expressions |
| Date: | 2025-09-16 11:08:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobxmQWEfPWBjfjco0dwzGvJ==tFKU01KefZnQrcQM0ujA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:56 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If there are no function names present, output “expr” in lieu of a function name. Then just output any columns that are present. No operators, no constants.
In the previous discussion, the user's expression indexes were on
these expressions:
jsondata -> 'a' -> 'b'
jsondata -> 'x' -> 'y'
So "no operators, no constants" wouldn't really allow us to make any
useful progress, inasmuch as it would throw away everything that
matters.
I am not really sure we want to do what Tom proposes here because, as
Pavel says, it would result in a lot of indexes containing special
characters in the name. But I do want us to try to find some way of
giving indexes on different expressions different names.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2025-09-16 11:41:58 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Previous Message | Shlok Kyal | 2025-09-16 10:53:00 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |