From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unusable SP-GiST index |
Date: | 2016-12-31 02:13:16 |
Message-ID: | 3410.1483150396@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Maybe we should redefine the API as involving a TupleTableSlot that
> the AM is supposed to fill --- basically, moving StoreIndexTuple
> out of the common code in nodeIndexonlyscan.c and requiring the AM
> to do that work. The possible breakage of third-party code is a
> bit annoying, but there can't be all that many third-party AMs
> out there yet.
After looking a bit at gist and sp-gist, neither of them would find that
terribly convenient; they really want to create one blob of memory per
index entry so as to not complicate storage management too much. But
they'd be fine with making that blob be a HeapTuple not IndexTuple.
So maybe the right approach is to expand the existing API to allow the
AM to return *either* a heap or index tuple; that could be made to not
be an API break.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2016-12-31 02:28:42 | Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-31 01:04:37 | Re: Unusable SP-GiST index |