Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-02-28 kell 10:04, kirjutas Hannu Krosing:
> Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-02-27 kell 15:05, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> This strikes me as a fairly bad idea, because it makes VACUUM dependent
> > >> on correct functioning of user-written code --- consider a functional
> > >> index involving a user-written function that was claimed to be immutable
> > >> and is not.
> >
> > > If the user-defined function is broken, you're in more or less trouble
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Less. A non-immutable function might result in lookup failures (not
> > finding the row you need) but not in database corruption, which is what
> > would ensue if VACUUM fails to remove an index tuple.
Or do you man that an index entry pointing to a non-existing tuple is
"corruption" ? It would be realtively easy to teach index access method
to just ignore (or even delete) the dangling index entries.
> Arguably the database is *already* broken once one has used a
> non-immutable function in index ops.
>
> "Failing to remove" is a condition that is easily detected, so one can
> flag the operator class as lossy (RECHECK) and actually fix that
> brokenness.
Ok, maybe not fix but alleviate - you wont get any non-matching tuples,
but there still remains the possibility to get the sam tuple twice.
------------
Hannu
