Return-Path: postarch
Received: by postgres.Berkeley.EDU (5.61/1.29)
	id AA11573; Wed, 6 Nov 91 22:42:25 -0800
Message-Id: <9111070642.AA11573@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>
From: postarch (Postgres Mailing Archive)
Subject: Re: Index
To: postgres@postgres.berkeley.edu
Sender: pg_adm@postgres.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Nov 91 11:20:03 PST."
             <9111051920.AA18987@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:42:04 PST

In message <9111051920.AA18987@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> you write:
> 
> After I defined index on a field of type int4, my program using libpq got
> abord, And then I removed the index, my program works well. Is there any
> problem in defining index on int4 field? I just know there were some problems
> on int4 field before, and I got a bugfix.

I suspect that the problems you are referring to are with indices defined
on attributes of type text. We use indices defined on int4 attributes 
routinely, as we always make sure we can run the Wisconsin benchmark.  To 
my knowledge there haven't been any problems reported on int4 indices.

Jeff Meredith
mer@postgres.berkeley.edu