On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 16:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I believe this is safe.
>
> I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how I know that you
> didn't even test the patch against hash or gist.
I don't recall either way, though from what you say it seems I did not
test those cases. Thanks for catching my error.
> The major problem with the patch is that it's incapable of producing
> correct tuple-count stats for partial indexes, which is really not
> acceptable from a planning standpoint. What I'm currently fooling with
> is skipping the bulkdelete scan only if the index isn't partial...
Thanks for spotting this case. I strive to learn.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
