| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Date: | 2014-11-01 19:51:39 |
| Message-ID: | 9622.1414871499@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-11-01 15:33:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> With current usage of hash indexes, nobody would ever construct such an
>> arrangement
> Do you think this should only be implemented for hash indexes? I'd think
> we'd do it for all existing index AMs?
I think we should eventually get to that point, perhaps. I'd want to do
it first for hash, since that's what direly needs it. I can see the value
of doing it for btree as well, but I'm less sure that the other index
types would have enough usage to justify the work.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-11-01 20:38:43 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-01 19:40:47 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |