| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Date: | 2018-05-11 03:32:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20180511033227.vvgm3yi5xngro2hp@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-05-10 23:25:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I still don't think, as commented upon by Tom and me upthread, that we
> > want this feature in the current form.
>
> Was this concern ever addressed, or did the patch just get committed anyway?
No. Simon just claimed it's not actually a concern:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+j+vtskPhEp_GmqmEqdWaKSt2KbOtee0yz-my+Agh0aRPw@mail.gmail.com
And yes, it got committed without doing squat to address the
architectural concerns.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-11 03:38:34 | Re: PANIC during crash recovery of a recently promoted standby |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-11 03:25:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |