| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 01:07:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQHvV7ZEa3_g3KaqovwqDKuTP=GqnsvNx=8ikwOywVwsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2014 04:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I understand that there are ambitious plans for a VODKA-am that will
>> support indexing operations on nested structures that are a lot more
>> advanced than those enabled by the hstore operator classes included in
>> these patches. However, surely these hstore operator classes have
>> independent value, or represent incremental progress?
>
> Primary value is that in theory the hstore2 opclasses are available
> *now*, as opposed to a year from now.
Well, yes, that's right. Although we cannot assume that VODKA will get
into 9.5 - it's a big project. Nor is it obvious to me that a
VODKA-ized set of operator classes would not bring with them exactly
the same dilemma as we now face vis-a-vis hstore code reuse and GIN
operator classes. So it seems reasonable to me to suppose that VODKA
should not influence our decision here. Please correct me if I'm
mistaken.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-03-04 01:07:34 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-04 00:57:09 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |