| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Date: | 2003-09-19 23:31:27 |
| Message-ID: | 12012.1064014287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Log message:
>> Seems like a bad idea that REINDEX TABLE supports (or
>> thinks it does)
>> reindexing system tables without ignoring system
>> indexes,
> Why ?
I'd ask the question the other way: why would it be a good idea to allow
this in REINDEX TABLE and not in the other two cases? And did it really
work?
The REINDEX code is messy and fragile enough that I think we should do
whatever we can to simplify it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-09-19 23:38:42 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-19 23:15:19 | pgsql-server/src/bin/pg_dump pg_dump.c |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-09-19 23:38:42 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-19 23:28:34 | Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-09-19 23:38:42 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-19 23:23:03 | Re: semtimedop instead of setitimer/semop/setitimer |