Re: cascading column drop to index predicates

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cascading column drop to index predicates
Date: 2003-12-22 16:18:04
Message-ID: 3FE7193C.1000703@pse-consulting.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:

>Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
>
>
>>I think Andreas is trying to argue that if you drop column b from index
>>(a, b) that the index should be converted into index(a) -- assuming of
>>course there isn't already an index(a).
>>
>>
>
>That seems to be well outside the charter of DROP CASCADE. I think we
>either drop or don't drop; we don't go building new indexes, which is
>what this would take. There are also definitional problems --- for
>instance, if the index is UNIQUE, does it transmogrify into a UNIQUE
>constraint on A alone (which would most likely fail)?
>
>

Agreed, auto creation wouldn't be necessary/expected. If you drop,
objects disappear, you don't expect them to morph. But I'd like to be
inhibited to drop the column if it requires a somewhat recreated index
on (a). So IMHO a DROP INDEX [RESTRICT] should drop only dependent
objects if this won't affect others.

Regards,
Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Glenn Wiorek 2003-12-22 16:54:30 Re: Postgres respond after toomany times to a query view
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-22 16:08:06 Re: cascading column drop to index predicates

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-12-22 18:28:18 Re: [HACKERS] Current Win32 port status
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-22 16:08:06 Re: cascading column drop to index predicates