| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 14:46:13 |
| Message-ID: | 546CAD35.7030503@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/19/14 3:38 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I think that should be forbidden, because it is very likely to corrupt
> the index. I expect the objection that this would break valid use cases
> where people know exactly what they are doing, but I believe that this
> is a footgun for inexperienced users that should be disarmed.
Yes, I believe that objection to be completely valid. I can't begin to
describe how frustrating it is to be in the position where my hammer is
made out of plastic because someone might hurt themself if it was a real
one.
I'd at least like to see a workaround for the "less inexperienced" users.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-11-19 14:54:47 | Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-19 14:45:30 | Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions |