Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > We actually go quite some lengths to support this case, even when it's > > the opinion of many that we shouldn't. For example VACUUM doesn't try > > to find index entries using the values in each deleted tuple; instead we > > remember the TIDs and then scan the indexes (possibly many times) to > > find entries that match those TIDs -- which is much slower. Yet we do > > it this way to protect the case that somebody is doing the > > not-really-IMMUTABLE function. > > > > In other words, I don't think we consider the position you argued as > > acceptable. > > What are you saying is unacceptable, and what behavior would be > acceptable instead? The answer "we don't support the situation where you have an index using an IMMUTABLE function that isn't actually immutable" is not acceptable. The acceptable solution would be a design that doesn't have that property as a requisite. I think having various executor(/heapam) checks that raise errors when queries are executed from within ANALYZE is acceptable. I don't know about the TOAST related angle Andres just raised. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
