| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | AP <ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql 10: hash indexes testing |
| Date: | 2017-07-11 17:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20170711173807.fdw3o7om22rgvp2f@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yes, I also think the same idea can be used, in fact, I have mentioned
> it [1] as soon as you have committed that patch. Do we want to do
> anything at this stage for PG-10? I don't think we should attempt
> something this late unless people feel this is a show-stopper issue
> for usage of hash indexes. If required, I think a separate function
> can be provided to allow users to perform squeeze operation.
Sorry, I have no idea how critical this squeeze thing is for the
newfangled hash indexes, so I cannot comment on that. Does this make
the indexes unusable in some way under some circumstances?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-07-11 17:45:51 | Re: Arrays of domains |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2017-07-11 16:51:03 | Fwd: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |