Re: Get more from indices.

From: "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "'Etsuro Fujita'" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI'" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Get more from indices.
Date: 2013-11-28 12:10:29
Message-ID: 006b01ceec32$d462fca0$7d28f5e0$@etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > > > * In get_relation_info(), the patch determines the branch
> > > > condition "keyattno != ObjectIdAttributeNumber". I fail to
> > > > understand the meaning of this branch condition. Could you explain
> about it?

> > > Literally answering, it means oid cannot be NULL (if it exists).

> > Understood. Thank you for the detailed information. But I'm not sure
> > it's worth complicating the code. What use cases are you thinking?

> Having said that, I've reconsidered about this, and start to think it
would
> be better that all system attributes are processed in the same way as are
> user attributes because that makes the code more simple. Yes, as you
> mention, it's not necessarily guaranteed that system attributes have the
> uniqueness property in general, but that's another problem.

I've modified the patch to work in such a way. Also, as ISTM the patch is
more complicated than what the patch really does, I've simplified the patch.
Attached is an updated version of the patch. Could you review the patch?

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment Content-Type Size
pathkey_and_uniqueindx_v6_20131128.patch application/octet-stream 5.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu kommi 2013-11-28 12:11:45 Re: New option for pg_basebackup, to specify a different directory for pg_xlog
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-11-28 10:43:41 Re: Status of FDW pushdowns