Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Probably we don't have to keep the relhasindex info in the
> > db any longer and we had better keep some info about REINDEX
> > in memory local to the backend.
>
> I never did much care for the "change relhasindex" hack. Why isn't
> IsIgnoringSystemIndexes a sufficient solution? I don't really care
> if REINDEX is a little bit slower than it might be, so just turning
> off use of *all* system indexes seems like an adequate answer.
It may be a reasonable solution.
I thought of another idea while reading the thread [HACKERS]
sequence indexes. Currently REINDEX recreates indexes from
the heap relations because the indexes may be corrupted.
However we can recreate indexes from existent ones if
they are sane. It would be a lot faster than the current
way for large tables.
Comments ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
