From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
Date: | 2014-06-17 14:31:45 |
Message-ID: | 20140617143145.GA6836@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-06-17 10:26:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > Here's an updated version of this patch, with fixes to all the bugs
> >> > reported so far. Thanks to Thom Brown, Jaime Casanova, Erik Rijkers and
> >> > Amit Kapila for the reports.
> >>
> >> I'm not very happy with the use of a separate relation fork for
> >> storing this data.
> >
> > Here's a new version of this patch. Now the revmap is not stored in a
> > separate fork, but together with all the regular data, as explained
> > elsewhere in the thread.
>
> Cool.
>
> Have you thought more about this comment from Heikki?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52495DD3.9010809@vmware.com
Is there actually a significant usecase behind that wish or just a
general demand for being generic? To me it seems fairly unlikely you'd
end up with something useful by doing a minmax index over bounding
boxes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-06-17 14:33:41 | Re: Set new system identifier using pg_resetxlog |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-06-17 14:31:00 | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |