Re: Minmax indexes

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minmax indexes
Date: 2014-01-24 17:54:19
Message-ID: CAA-aLv6Ly7x_yQ0bny3S7vUoP5So7VcCq3=RENdpP9aAov_Dtw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24 January 2014 17:53, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 8 November 2013 20:11, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> >> On Thu, September 26, 2013 00:34, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, September 25, 2013 22:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [minmax-5.patch]
>> >> >
>> >> > I have the impression it's not quite working correctly.
>> >
>> > Here's a version 7 of the patch, which fixes these bugs and adds
>> > opclasses for a bunch more types (timestamp, timestamptz, date, time,
>> > timetz), courtesy of Martín Marqués. It's also been rebased to apply
>> > cleanly on top of today's master branch.
>> >
>> > I have also added a selectivity function, but I'm not positive that it's
>> > very useful yet.
>>
>> This patch doesn't appear to have been submitted to any Commitfest.
>> Is this still a feature undergoing research then?
>
> It's still a planned feature, but I didn't have time to continue work
> for 2014-01.

Alles klar.

Thanks

--
Thom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2014-01-24 17:54:40 Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-01-24 17:53:04 Re: Minmax indexes