"Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/16/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the proximate cause of the problem is that the function's
>> SELECT is trying to use an index on the category_id column,
>> and the REINDEX done by ALTER TABLE happens to rebuild the two indexes
>> in the other order, such that the one on category_id isn't valid yet
>> when the functional index is rebuilt.
> why does ALTER TABLE ADD new_col int default 0 rebuilds
> existing indexes ?
Because it has to rewrite the whole table to insert the default value
in every row. A REINDEX is way more efficient for recovering from that
than any row-by-row update would be.
>> I wonder whether we need to do something to actively prevent functions
>> used in an index from querying the database? It's not too hard to
>> imagine crashing the backend by playing this sort of game.
> the game was seemingly fulfilling a requirement. dunno what
> i should be doing now.
It sorta looks to me like you're trying to get the effect of a
materialized view --- have you looked at the techdocs pages about
how to do those in Postgres?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
