Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Perhaps the correct fix would be to mark stored query trees as having a >> dependency on the index, so that dropping the index/constraint would >> force a drop of the rule too.
> Alternatively, we could rewrite the rule (not unlike what we do for > "SELECT *") to actually add on the other implicitly grouped-by columns.. > I don't know if that's better or worse than creating a dependency, > since if the constraint were dropped/changed, people might expect the > rule's output to change. Hm. The problem with that is that one of the benefits we'd like to get from this is an efficiency win: the generated plan ought to only group by the PK, not uselessly sort/group by everything in the row. I suppose we could have the planner reverse-engineer its way to that, but it seems awfully slow and clunky to add on the extra columns and then reason our way to removing them again. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers