| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed |
| Date: | 2014-11-20 19:28:35 |
| Message-ID: | 18706.1416511715@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>> I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
>> questions like this, it is more a matter of taste. Is it more important to protect
>> the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or is it more important to
>> provide a well honed scalpel for the experienced surgeon?
> +1.
> I think if we had an already-existing prohibition here and you
> proposed relaxing it, the howls would be equally loud. We're not
> entirely consistent about how picky we are.
How's that quote about foolish consistency go? In many cases, the reason
why we enforce some things and not others is practical utility.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-11-20 19:36:17 | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-11-20 19:25:41 | Ripping out dead code for mark/restore in some plan types |