Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> On 12/9/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Suppose an index get corrupted. And you need create a new index
> > > with exact specs and then drop the old index. Is it better to
> > > have a performing corrupted index or not have it at all and temporarily
> > > suffer some performance degradation ?
> >
> > The case that was being discussed just a day or two ago was where you
> > wanted to do the equivalent of REINDEX because of index bloat, not any
> > functional "corruption". In that case it's perfectly clear that
> > temporarily not having the index isn't acceptable ... especially if
> > it's enforcing a unique constraint.
>
> Sorry ,
> i guess i digressed .
> Lemme put the question once again.
>
> psql> CREATE INDEX x on test (col1);
> psql> CREATE INDEX y on test (col1);
>
> What is (are) the downsides of disallowing the
> second index. which is *exactly* same as
> previous?
The cost of preventing every stupid database use is too high.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
