Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [snip] (In fact, it's
>> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
>> could make this fail.) So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
>> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.
> Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
> no indexes using user defined functions ?
Of course, we never have bugs in PG core. Nope, doesn't happen ...
> I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
> where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
> percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
> current one ?
So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
not-so-immutable-function risk.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
