| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2000-02-03 13:26:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200002031326.IAA22002@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> > Let me add that to the TODO list.
>
> Why not change that to a relnumindexes as well? Easier to maintain and
> more useful information.
Yes, we probably should do that, but I bet some interfaces us it.
Comments?
Actually, looks like only pg_dump uses it, so maybe we would be OK.
Maybe 7.0 is a good time to fix this.
>
> > > >Could you do that for relhassubclass?
> > >
> > > If we made it relnumsubclasses and incremented/decremented on
> > > CREATE/DROP, it seems easy in theory.
> >
> > Yes, that would work. Seems hasindex has problems.
>
> ************
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-02-03 13:40:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-02-03 13:05:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-02-03 13:40:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-02-03 13:05:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Hollomon | 2000-02-03 13:40:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-02-03 13:05:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |