| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: partial index on system indexes? | 
| Date: | 2002-07-24 07:52:48 | 
| Message-ID: | 9653.1027497168@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> In private email with Tatsuo, I learned it is for the new loadable
> encoding patch, and he wants to use the index from the syscache.  The
> reason for the partial index is because the index itself would not be
> unique, but a partial index would be unique.
> Because the index is part of the syscache, we have to create it as part
> of initdb bootstrap, rather than in the initdb script.
This sounds like a really bad idea to me.  A syscache based on a partial
index is almost certainly not going to work.
Before we invest in a lot of effort making bootstrap, syscache, and who
knows what else support partial indexes, I want to see a very clear
explanation why we must do it.  Note I am looking for "*must* do it",
not "it makes this other part of the system a little simpler".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ulrich Neumann | 2002-07-24 10:37:40 | not released memory / garbage collector | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-24 07:18:55 | Re: partial index on system indexes? |