"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>>>> I know another case. pg_attrdef has no index on (adrelid,attnum)
>>>> though it has an index on (adrelid).
>>
>> Doesn't look to me like we need an index on (adrelid,attnum), at
>> least not in any paths that are common enough to justify maintaining
>> another index. The (adrelid) index supports loading attrdef data
>> into the relcache, which is the only path I'm particularly concerned
>> about performance of...
> It seems to me that an index on (adrelid,adnum) should
> exist instead of the current index. It identifies pg_attrdef.
> I say *Oops* about it in my trial implementation of ALTER
> TABLE DROP COLUMN.
Right, I saw that. But it seems to be the only place where such an
index would be useful. The relcache-loading routines, which seem to
be the only performance-critical access to pg_attrdef, prefer an index
on adrelid only. Is it worth maintaining a 2-column index (which is
bulkier and slower than a 1-column one) just to speed up ALTER TABLE
DROP COLUMN?
regards, tom lane
