On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:47:00PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 07/21/2013 11:30 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Attached patch just restores the old behavior. Would it be worth > >> preserving > >> the ability to fix an index consistency problem with a REINDEX independent > >> from related heap consistency problems such as duplicate keys? > > > > I would love to have two versions of REINDEX, one which validated and > > one which didn't. Maybe a ( validate off ) type check? > > Cancel this. I just did some tests, and there amount of time required > for the validation (at least, in simple two-column table test) is < 10% > of the time required to reindex in general. At that difference, we > don't need two options. > > Unless you're asking if we want a command to check the index validity > without rebuilding it? That might be more valuable ...
I meant to ask whether, instead of reverting the accidental behavior change, we should do something like leave the behavior and change the documentation instead. I personally vote "no", but that alternative seemed credible enough to justify mentioning it. Something more radical, like a new UI, would be a separate patch. Thanks, nm -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
