On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:41 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:33 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, having it match the way it works makes sense. Would you feel > > comfortable with an intermediate step (queueing up that as a larger > > change) changing the clause to something like "indexes will still have > > to be rebuilt unless the system can guarantee that the sort order is > > proven to be unchanged" (with appropriate wordsmithing to be a bit > > less verbose if possible)? > > Yeah, that seems fine. It's arguable how much detail we should go into > here - but a statement of the form you propose is not misleading, and > that's what seems most important to me.
All right, thanks for feedback. Attached is v2 with such a change. I've not included examples, and I'm about 50/50 on doing so. What are your thoughts on adding in parens "e.g., changing from varchar to text avoids rebuilding indexes while changing from text to a domain of text with a different collation will require rebuilding indexes"? Thanks, James Coleman
v2-0001-Docs-Index-rebuilding-is-sometimes-skipped-along-.patch
Description: Binary data
