On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > [patch to avoid index rebuilds]
With respect to the documentation hunks, it seems to me that the first hunk might be made clearer by leaving the paragraph of which it is a part as-is, and adding another paragraph afterwards beginning with the words "In addition". I am not sure whether the second hunk is necessary at all. Doesn't the existing language cover the same territory as what you've added? I think that the variables in ATPostAlterTypeCleanup() could be better named. They appear to be values, when in fact they are ListCells. Honestly I'd probably just use l1 and l2, but if you want to insist on some more mnemonic naming it should probably be something that sounds vaguely list-ish. As you no doubt expected, my eyes was immediately drawn to the index-resurrection hack. Reviewing the thread, I see that you asked about that in January and never got feedback. I have to say that what you've done here looks like a pretty vile hack, but it's hard to say for sure without knowing what to compare it against. You made reference to this being smaller and simpler than updating the index definition in place - can you give a sketch of what would need to be done if we went that route instead? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers