| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-26 04:24:08 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002252024x16dbf68djc9ebd90ea7e92699@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> No, it's far from harmless. As soon as that heap TID gets filled with
> an unrelated tuple, you run the risk of indexscans alighting on and
> perhaps modifying the wrong tuple.
>
>
Tom,
In the Function based indexes on those functions, which we are
suspecting to be a volatile one Or in the datatypes, which we suspect to be
broken, can we have additional checks to ensure that to ensure that this
does not happen? I mean, do you think, that would solve the issue?
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 04:25:46 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
| Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-02-26 04:20:21 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |