Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 13 January 2016 at 06:47, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> Why is omit_opclass a separate patch? If the included columns now
> never participate in the index ordering, shouldn't it be an inherent
> property of the main patch that you can "cover" things without btree
> opclasses?
>
>
I also wondered this. We can't have covering indexes without fixing the
problem with the following arrays:

info->indexkeys = (int *) palloc(sizeof(int) * ncolumns);
info->indexcollations = (Oid *) palloc(sizeof(Oid) * ncolumns);
info->opfamily = (Oid *) palloc(sizeof(Oid) * ncolumns);

These need to be sized according to the number of key columns, not the
total number of columns. Of course, the TODO item in the patch states this
too.

I don't personally think the covering_unique_4.0.patch is that close to
being too big to review, I think things would make more sense of the
omit_opclass_4.0.patch was included together with this.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services