On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * Up to now, the only functions directly invoked by an index AM were
> members of index opclasses; and since opclasses can only be defined by
> superusers, there was at least some basis for trusting the functions
> to behave sanely. But if an index AM is going to invoke arbitrary
> user-defined expressions then more care is needed. What's particularly
> bothering me is the notion of executing arbitrary functions while
> holding a buffer lock on an index page.
Actually, for a first pass I was considering doing it within the
nodeIndexScan.c/nodeBitmapScan.c and not within the AM at all. But I
just remembered, the index interface has no way to return the actual
values in the index, so you can't do that :(
So other than being careful with locking, you don't see any objections?
How about the suggestion of using a sequential index scan like the
recent changes to VACUUM in the case that there are no regular index
Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-05-27 15:52:40|
|Subject: Re: LIKE, leading percent, bind parameters and indexes |
|Previous:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2006-05-27 15:36:15|
|Subject: Re: Inefficient bytea escaping?|