From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
In-reply-to: <20190114223409.3tcvejfhlvbucrv5@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180106225942.GT2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <40fd1ef1-6227-69d1-9a24-edfef875e006@postgrespro.ru>
 <20180301194824.46ivyszju2ivhlh5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoZzdNsTFmmt+wTtCn0hQ+1F=OEG6ptbSRbi6prqVa97Cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180511033227.vvgm3yi5xngro2hp@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CANP8+jKD+u-oW-whEdx1+k_NjAwHU4PvNse-qLp-o_d2zSXW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180511143737.rvogcsxdksrhyyj5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CANP8+jLgdS-_ka5bhyG_=f5wGYVY-bQy3YD7rJY=TDnpA1snmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmob_qk-w38Mbp5wCCGH9G8AFpmB0K0aTLujJqHNbBpBNUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <25975.1541618754@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190114223409.3tcvejfhlvbucrv5@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:34:09 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28043.1547507004.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:03:24 -0500
Message-ID: <28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-11-07 14:25:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, it seems likely to me that large parts of this patch need to
>> be pulled out, rewritten, and then put back in different places than
>> they are today.  I'm not sure if a complete revert is the best next
>> step, or if we can make progress without that.

> We've not really made progress on this. I continue to think that we
> ought to revert this feature, and then work to re-merge it an
> architecturally correct way afterwards.  Other opinions?

Given the lack of progress, I'd agree with a revert.  It's probably
already going to be a bit painful to undo due to subsequent changes,
so we shouldn't wait too much longer.

Do we want to revert entirely, or leave the "recheck_on_update" option
present but nonfunctional?

			regards, tom lane