Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

13.01.2016 04:47, David Rowley :
> On 13 January 2016 at 06:47, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
> Why is omit_opclass a separate patch? If the included columns now
> never participate in the index ordering, shouldn't it be an inherent
> property of the main patch that you can "cover" things without btree
> opclasses?
>
>
> I don't personally think the covering_unique_4.0.patch is that close
> to being too big to review, I think things would make more sense of
> the omit_opclass_4.0.patch was included together with this.
>

I agree that these patches should be merged. It'll be fixed it the next
updates.
I kept them separate only for historical reasons, it was more convenient
for me to debug them. Furthermore, I wanted to show some performance
degradation caused by "omit_opclass" and give a way to reproduce it
performing test with and whithot the patch.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company