From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | relhasexclusion is in the wrong place |
Date: | 2011-01-25 14:50:12 |
Message-ID: | 18637.1295967012@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I've just noticed that we were guilty of very sloppy thinking in
defining pg_class.relhasexclusion. The only place that actually
*uses* that value, rather than jumping through hoops to maintain it,
is BuildIndexInfo --- and what it's looking at is not the pg_class
entry of the table, but the pg_class entry of the index. There is
no need whatsoever to maintain such a flag at the table level.
This being the case, I think we should move the flag to pg_index
(and rename it to indisexclusion). That will get rid of all the
semantic fuzziness around it, the need to update it in VACUUM,
etc.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-01-25 14:54:33 | Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-25 14:35:31 | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |