On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch <n...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch <n...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> > CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new >>> > operator >>> > classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column. It >>> > then >>> > checks those against the existing values for the same. I figured that was >>> > obvious enough, but do you want a new version noting that? >>> >>> I guess one question I had was... are we depending on the fact that >>> ComputeIndexAttrs() performs a bunch of internal sanity checks? Or >>> are we just expecting those to always pass, and we're going to examine >>> the outputs after the fact? >> >> Those checks can fail; consider an explicit operator class or collation that >> does not support the destination type. At that stage, we neither rely on >> those >> checks nor mind if they do fire. If we somehow miss the problem at that >> stage, >> DefineIndex() will detect it later. Likewise, if we hit an error in >> CheckIndexCompatible(), we would also hit it later in DefineIndex(). > > OK.
Committed with minor comment and documentation changes. -- 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
