From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.5] next question: rls and indexes |
Date: | 2015-07-22 21:04:02 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCWm6fVtLWcAF6po+C0=aQLOmoK=wEy6S45aSPUZvzD3Wg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 15 July 2015 at 09:34, Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> wrote:
> test=> explain select * from rls_test ;
> QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on rls_test (cost=0.00..630.00 rows=91 width=335)
> Filter: (name = ("current_user"())::text)
> (2 rows)
>
> As you can see, the index isn't in use, but i think, in this case PG
> should use it.
>
> Bug or Feature?
>
Yes, that's a bug. It should indeed use the index for queries like
that. Debugging it reveals that the reason it didn't is a collation
mismatch which caused it to believe there were no suitable indexes to
use.
Fortunately this has been fixed (post 9.5 alpha 1) -- see
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=808ea8fc7bb259ddd810353719cac66e85a608c8
-- and the same query on HEAD now does use the index.
Thanks for testing.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Smith | 2015-07-23 07:06:19 | Re: Delete rule does not prevent truncate |
Previous Message | Миша Тюрин | 2015-07-22 16:34:56 | Re: [GENERAL] Way to get timeline |