From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index USING in pg_dump |
Date: | 2002-03-08 17:01:02 |
Message-ID: | 20020308170102.GB11937@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:07:57AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > This is possible because btree is the default. TODO item is:
> > > * Remove USING clause from pg_get_indexdef() if index is btree (Bruce)
> >
> > I do not think this is necessary or helpful. The only possible
> > reason to change it would be if we thought btree might someday
> > not be the default index type --- but no such change is on the
> > horizon. And if one was, you've just embedded special knowledge
> > about btree in yet one more place...
>
> Yes, but it doesn't look like the way they created it.
Why is this relevant?
> Very few use
> USING in there queries. Why show it in pg_dump output?
I agree with Tom: this seems like a waste of time, and may even be worse
than the current pg_dump output. The type of the index is "btree"; by
assuming that Pg happens to default to "btree", you're just making the
process of index restoration more fragile.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-08 17:26:08 | Re: Index USING in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-08 16:43:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Index USING in pg_dump |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-08 17:26:08 | Re: Index USING in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-08 16:43:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Index USING in pg_dump |