| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index-only scans |
| Date: | 2011-10-09 22:23:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HM_wcUOyjzuTkd+sTaGwnm0ym=Wo6W7jqJi9GeyZ4Bgpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't think it's particularly relevant --- we would not want to use
> weird representations of the Vars outside the index scan nodes. Above
> the scan they'd be just like any other upper-level Vars.
I can't say I fully understand the planner data structures and the
implications of the options. I guess what I was imagining was that
being able to reference the indexes as regular rangetable entries
would make it more convenient for the rest of the planner to keep
working as if nothing had changed when working with values extracted
from index tuples.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-10 01:47:08 | Re: index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-09 21:54:11 | Re: index-only scans |