Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > Another thing I noticed is that version 8 of the patch blindly believed > > the "pages_per_range" declared in catalogs. This meant that if somebody > > did "alter index foo set pages_per_range=123" the index would > > immediately break (i.e. return corrupted results when queried). I have > > fixed this by storing the pages_per_range value used to construct the > > index in the metapage. Now if you do the ALTER INDEX thing, the new > > value is only used when the index is recreated by REINDEX. > > This seems a lot like parameterizing.
I don't understand what that means -- care to elaborate? > So I guess the only thing left is to issue a NOTICE when said alter > takes place (I don't see that on the patch, but maybe it's there?) That's not in the patch. I don't think we have an appropriate place to emit such a notice. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers