Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date: 2024-10-07 16:43:36
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ3_u9D2MUbj7WDW4sWZoGueU50JTCUEQwVVHUHTbPazA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > To be clear, I don't think that it's essential that we have equivalent
> > behavior in those cases where the patch applies its transformations. I
> > have no objections to committing the patch without any handling for
> > that.
>
> Oy. I don't agree with that *at all*. An "optimization" that changes
> query semantics is going to be widely seen as a bug.

I think everyone agrees on that. The issue is that I don't know how to
implement the optimization Peter wants without changing the query
semantics, and it seems like Alexander doesn't either. By committing
the patch without that optimization, we're *avoiding* changing the
query semantics.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2024-10-07 18:42:31 Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-10-07 16:41:12 Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes