| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Date: | 2016-09-30 00:53:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZT+87QJ7XAd_MaUtYgY-2K8UgOz2k3yxj+rLRfD=d-bFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I, for one, agree with this position.
>
> Well, I, for one, find it frustrating. It seems pretty unhelpful to
> bring this up only after the code has already been written. The first
> post on this thread was on May 10th. The first version of the patch
> was posted on June 16th. This position was first articulated on
> September 15th.
Really, what do we have to lose at this point? It's not very difficult
to do what Andres proposes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-30 00:54:15 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-30 00:51:36 | Re: Hash Indexes |