| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2014-07-11 19:07:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpZuB3i8Pk2fzVSFjuogjvwPugr_V-hOXvA5TM_rcxWLhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Marking as read-only is ok, or emitting a NOTICE so that if anyone
>> changes those parameters that change the shape of the index, they know
>> it needs a rebuild would be OK too. Both mechanisms work for me.
>
> We don't actually have any of these mechanisms. They wouldn't be bad
> things to have but I don't think we should gate adding new types of
> indexes on adding them. In particular, the index could just hard code
> a value for these parameters and having them be parameterized is
> clearly better even if that doesn't produce all the warnings or
> rebuild things automatically or whatever.
No, I agree, it's just a nice to have.
But at least the docs should mention it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-11 19:43:20 | Over-optimization in ExecEvalWholeRowVar |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-07-11 18:47:23 | Re: Minmax indexes |