On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Lets sidetrack this till we have a tender agreement on how to handle DDL ;).
>> I
>> am aware of the issues with rollbacks, truncate et al...
>
> Agreed; I will write up my thoughts abo
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Lets sidetrack this till we have a tender agreement on how to handle DDL ;). I
> am aware of the issues with rollbacks, truncate et al...
Agreed; I will write up my thoughts about DDL on the other thread. I
think that's a key thing we need
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 08:50:51 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> > This patch is problematic because formally indexes used by syscaches
> > needs to be unique, this one is not though because of 0/InvalidOids
> > entries for nailed/shared catalog
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> This patch is problematic because formally indexes used by syscaches needs to
> be unique, this one is not though because of 0/InvalidOids entries for
> nailed/shared catalog entries. Those values aren't allowed to be queried
> though.
That
From: Andres Freund
This patch is problematic because formally indexes used by syscaches needs to
be unique, this one is not though because of 0/InvalidOids entries for
nailed/shared catalog entries. Those values aren't allowed to be queried though.
It might be nicer to add infrastructure to do
