| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2014-06-19 09:41:52 |
| Message-ID: | 53A2B060.7070003@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/18/2014 12:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Isn't 'simpler implementation' a valid reason that's already been
>>> > >discussed onlist? Obviously simpler implementation doesn't trump
>>> > >everything, but it's one valid reason...
>>> > >Note that I have zap to do with the design of this feature. I work for
>>> > >the same company as Alvaro, but that's pretty much it...
>> >
>> > Without some analysis (e.g implementing it and comparing), I don't buy that
>> > it makes the implementation simpler to restrict it in this way. Maybe it
>> > does, but often it's actually simpler to solve the general case.
>
> So to implement a feature one now has to implement the most generic
> variant as a prototype first? Really?
Well, there is the inventor's paradox to consider.
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-06-19 10:19:58 | calculation for NUM_FIXED_LWLOCKS |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-06-19 09:40:45 | Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes |