Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed
Date
Msg-id 18706.1416511715@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:
>> I don't think that there is a universally compelling right or wrong to
>> questions like this, it is more a matter of taste.  Is it more important to protect
>> the casual DBA from hurting himself or herself, or is it more important to
>> provide a well honed scalpel for the experienced surgeon?

> +1.

> I think if we had an already-existing prohibition here and you
> proposed relaxing it, the howls would be equally loud.  We're not
> entirely consistent about how picky we are.

How's that quote about foolish consistency go?  In many cases, the reason
why we enforce some things and not others is practical utility.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Ripping out dead code for mark/restore in some plan types
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Functions used in index definitions shouldn't be changed