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
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 |
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 |