Re: Re: [PATCH] To remove EXTEND INDEX

On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:49:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Let's drop the meta-discussions and cut to the chase: given that we are
> about to re-enable partial indexes, should we try to make EXTEND INDEX
> work too, or just remove it?

Just a few clarifications:

* The reason it didn't go to -hackers was because I wasn't subscribed to it
and hence couldn't post to it. The only reason I can now is because I
subscribed (nopost) about 2 minutes ago.

* I discussed this with Tom Lane on -general a few days ago. I'm not sure
how many people saw that though. Are most of the people on -hackers
subscribed to -general as well?

* I agree with Tom's assertion that it's an awful lot of complexity for such
a marginal gain. Look at the size of the patch and the fact that it has all
been useless for the last few years.

* I didn't send it to -patches because it's not ready yet.

* Only posted a URL, not the patch itself. Sorry for the confusion.

Tom actually suggested doing this at the same time as re-enabling partial
indices but I favoured a separate patch considering the large number of
scattered changes.

Anyway, is there a concensus, or shall I forget the whole thing?

-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
http://svana.org/kleptog/
> It would be nice if someone came up with a certification system that
> actually separated those who can barely regurgitate what they crammed over
> the last few weeks from those who command secret ninja networking powers.