Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-21 16:13:25
Message-ID: 366059.67064.qm@web29018.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> By the time you make this actually work in all cases, it's probably
> going to be more of a mess than the other way;

I meant to add only ASC/DESC; I would leave all other cases
(non-btrees, custom expression btrees) to use the old index-scan method.

> not to mention that it
> doesn't work *at all* without violating SPI internals.

You lost me there...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-21 16:14:06 Re: lock_timeout GUC patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-21 16:11:40 Re: Git out of sync vs. CVS