On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 16:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I believe this is safe. > > I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how I know that you > didn't even test the patch against hash or gist.
I don't recall either way, though from what you say it seems I did not test those cases. Thanks for catching my error. > The major problem with the patch is that it's incapable of producing > correct tuple-count stats for partial indexes, which is really not > acceptable from a planning standpoint. What I'm currently fooling with > is skipping the bulkdelete scan only if the index isn't partial... Thanks for spotting this case. I strive to learn. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org