Re: [HACKERS] RE: Unique indexes on system tables

>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> > I am only afraid of index corruption.
> > The more we have system indexes,the more index corruption would happen.
>
> Just a concerned user question: Why does index corruption seem to happen
> so often or is a genuine concern? Wouldn't the next thing be table
> corruption? Or are indices optimized for speed rather than correctness
> because they don't contain important data?

There are more complicated concurrency issues on indices than
for regular tables. That's where the corrupt indices but not
tables come from.

For a user index, this isn't very critical, because a
drop/create index sequence will recover to consistent data.

For system catalog indices, this is a desaster, because you
cannot drop and recreate indices on system tables. At least
we need to tackle this problem by reincarnating reindexdb.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #