| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: I don't want to back up index files |
| Date: | 2009-03-12 00:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20090312002006.GK4009@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Glen Parker escribió:
> That's two people now who have called the idea "silly" without even a
> hint of a supporting argument. Why would it be "silly" to improve the
> performance of a highly valuable tool set without compromising its
> utility? Am I missing something here? That's certainly possible, but
> the idea didn't just hatch last night; I've put enough thought into this
> to have reason to believe it's more than just "silly".
FWIW I don't think this idea is silly at all. It's so not-silly, in
fact, that we already have some access methods that do this if an index
cannot be recovered (I think at least GiST does it).
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-12 00:41:55 | Streaming PUG meeting: PostgreSQL Genetics! |
| Previous Message | Glen Parker | 2009-03-11 23:57:56 | Re: I don't want to back up index files |