Re: ScanKey representation for RowCompare index conditions

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: ScanKey representation for RowCompare index conditions
Date: 2006-01-16 21:49:43
Message-ID: 20060116214943.GA28145@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:07:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since you didn't understand what I was saying, I suspect that plan A is
> too confusing ...

Umm, yeah. Now you've explained it I think it should be excluded on the
basis that it'll be a source of bugs. For all the places that matter a
row-condition needs to be treated as a whole and storing parts in a
top level ScanKey array just seems like asking for trouble.

Given no plan C, I guess plan B is the way to go...?
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2006-01-16 21:50:59 Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-01-16 21:46:43 Re: equivalence class not working?