From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey |
Date: | 2017-01-02 03:58:28 |
Message-ID: | CABOikdNuK1+FYxNx=KRQ48p+tH_J4SPa44VypaL_-+SqZm3TxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I think there is some chance that such a change could induce
> regression for the cases when there are many index columns or I think
> even when index is on multiple columns (consider index is on first and
> eight column in a ten column table).
>
>
I don't see that as a problem because the routine only checks for columns
that are passed as "interesting_cols".
Noticed below comment in interesting-attrs-2.patch
> + * are considered the "key" of rows in the table, and columns that are
> + * part of indirect indexes.
>
> Is it right to mention about indirect indexes in above comment
> considering indirect indexes are still not part of core code?
>
I agree. We can add details about indirect indexes or WARM later, as and
when those patches get committed.
> Pavan, please rebase your WARM patch on top of this and let me know how
> you like it. I'll post a new version of indirect indexes later this
> week.
>
>
I've rebased WARM on top of this patch and the proposed changes look fine
from WARM's perspective too. I'll send rebased patches separately.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Singer | 2017-01-02 04:23:00 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-01-02 03:22:29 | Re: rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey |