pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:19:08 -0500
Message-ID: <28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190114230918.fhp6wktbhg6pjnyw@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <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>
	<28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190114230918.fhp6wktbhg6pjnyw@alap3.anarazel.de>

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-01-14 18:03:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do we want to revert entirely, or leave the "recheck_on_update" option
>> present but nonfunctional?

> I think it depends a bit on whether we want to revert in master or
> master and 11. If only master, I don't see much point in leaving the
> option around. If both, I think we should (need to?) leave it around in
> 11 only.

After a few minutes' more thought, I think that the most attractive
option is to leave v11 alone and do a full revert in HEAD.  In this
way, if anyone's attached "recheck_on_update" options to their indexes,
it'll continue to work^H^H^H^Hdo nothing in v11, though they won't be
able to migrate to v12 till they remove the options.  That way we
aren't bound to the questionable design and naming of that storage
option if/when we try this again.

A revert in v11 would have ABI compatibility issues to think about,
and would also likely be a bunch more work on top of what we'll
have to do for HEAD, so leaving it as-is seems like a good idea.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (99+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, sfrost@snowman.net, michael.paquier@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, myon@debian.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
  In-Reply-To: <28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox