NikhilS escribió:

> On 5/23/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >NikhilS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> If so, I think we can introduce 2 Oid fields in the IndexStmt
> >> structure and store the Oids there. In DefineIndex we can use these
> >> Oids if they are not invalid.
> >
> >I think this is just make-work that causes the patch to complicate parts
> >of the system it didn't need to touch.  The original suggestion was to
> >actively refactor existing code, which might or might not have been
> >worthwhile.  But this isn't an appropriate substitute --- it's just
> >making the API uglier for no particular benefit.
> I agree this will unnecessary add arguments to the DefineIndex API. If we
> stick to the patch's earlier way of converting the Oid to names for just
> these 2 arguments, we can avoid this IMO.
> Considering that we will be generating this information from existing valid
> index information, I think converting the Oids to names is safe enough.
> Alvaro, do you think we should stick to the existing patch mechanism then
> considering that it avoids polluting the API?

Not sure.  Is it possible that the schema is renamed while the operation
is being executed?  If it's not then this not a problem at all so the
existing patch is fine.

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to