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?
Advertising
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 http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ 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 match
