X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235795E3632 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:03:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41158-06 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:03:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901E95E46F4 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:03:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7UL3Lm4011479; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:03:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Rosser Schwarz Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: function fails where individual statements succeed In-reply-to: <37d451f704083013401926a341@mail.gmail.com> References: <37d451f7040830101763682930@mail.gmail.com> <11133.1093897977@sss.pgh.pa.us> <37d451f704083013401926a341@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Rosser Schwarz message dated "Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:40:23 -0500" Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:03:21 -0400 Message-ID: <11478.1093899801@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200408/328 X-Sequence-Number: 18825 Rosser Schwarz writes: > We've opted to simply script issuing the statements serially, rather > than as a function for this one. Your explanation makes sense, Tom, > though I'm curious why it works in our long-running case (beyond the > issue of fewer indices there). Does the other case have any partial indexes? The particular error was about an index predicate condition; it might be that you don't happen to fall foul of the issue when dealing with simple CREATE INDEX commands. I'd describe that as "miraculously managing not to fail", though, not as a behavior I'd care to rely on. regards, tom lane