On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 18:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, in the mean-time, I think my patch is still valid. Unless there
> > are any remaining problems, please apply for 7.3.
>
> No, I disagree. If we are intending to remove ownership from indexes,
> there is no good reason to add code that will only get taken out again.
Well, that's assuming that someone steps forward to actually write the
code. I haven't heard that anyone has...
And as for adding code that will only be removed, the code is finished,
tested, reviewed and ready to apply -- all the work _has_ been done.
Additionally, if someone eventually fixes the index-ownership situation,
the changes to command.c to remove the index recursion are trivial. This
patch also includes some refactoring and code cleanups that are useful
in any case.
> There is no bug here of sufficient importance to warrant a temporary
> hack solution; the existing behavior can be lived with.
I wouldn't call my solution a "temporary hack"; it's a similar idea to
code that is found throughout the tree.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
