From: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Disallow unique index on system columns |
Date: | 2016-04-21 00:09:55 |
Message-ID: | CANcm6wb=h_9KiNLwM-=8MTC8fTSdwoCH0=VNNMKafwn=8etrPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Pushed. I moved the check into DefineIndex, as that's where user-facing
> complaints about indexes generally ought to be.
>
If you're planning on back-patching this, please don't. :) It'll
literally ruin my life.
I've got an extension that's actually a custom Access Method, and for
reasons that are probably too boring to go into here, it requires that the
first column in the index be a function that takes the ctid. Ie, something
akin to:
CREATE INDEX idx ON table (my_func('table', ctid), other_func(table));
The AM implementation itself doesn't actually use the result of my_func(),
but that construct is necessary so I can detect certain queries that look
like:
SELECT FROM table WHERE my_func('table', ctid) ==> 'index condition'
I don't mind that you're changing this for 9.6... 9.6 is going to change so
much other stuff around custom AMs that I'll deal with it when the time
comes, but back-patching this into 9.3/4/5 would make life very difficult.
Thanks for listening!
eric
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ants Aasma | 2016-04-21 01:08:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-20 22:38:56 | PGCTLTIMEOUT in pg_regress, or skink versus the clock |