Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Date: 2008-07-23 15:05:35
Message-ID: 15378.1216825535@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> So, may be we just move insertcleanup call to   ginbulkdelete/ginvacuumcleanup 
> but leave aminsertcleanup field in pg_proc for a future.

I'd be inclined not to add the extra AM call if we aren't going to use
it now.  There's no very good reason to think that a definition we
settled on today would be exactly the right thing for whatever future
need might appear.  Better to wait till we have a concrete example to
design around.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-07-23 15:13:11
Subject: Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-23 15:01:29
Subject: Re: Postgres-R: internal messaging

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-23 16:05:36
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-23 14:59:20
Subject: Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group