Re: knngist - 0.8

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should think of pg_amop not so much
>> as a way to tell the AM what to do, but just a way to tell it what
>> operator is logically involved without relying on the name or OID.
>
> I already think of it that way ...

OK.

>>> Maybe we should think in terms of a side channel for Peter's patch
>>> as well.  I share your feeling that trying to propagate collation
>>> the same way we now propagate typmod is a recipe for serious pain.
>
>> I'm not sure what you're thinking of here.
>
> I'm not either.  I'm dissatisfied with the direction he's heading
> because of the amount of code it's going to break, but I don't have a
> better idea.  It may well be impossible to have this feature without
> breaking everything in sight.  (And, if we are going to break everything
> in sight, now would be a good time to think about changing typmod to
> something more flexible than one int32.)

I assume I don't need to tell you my vote on that.

But I'm also not sure how far this gets us with KNNGIST, where the
issue is not the typmods but the auxilliary information about the
context of the sort and/or whether this is a sort or qual.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company