| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
| Date: | 2009-07-14 21:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20090714210645.GA4506@it.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:13:33PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 13:29 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > I am looking at adding unique support to hash indexes for 8.5 and
> > they will definitely need to visit the heap.
>
> Have you seen this patch?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1246840119.19547.126.camel@jdavis
>
> This patch will support unique constraints for hash indexes as well.
> There may still be a use-case for specialized hash index unique
> constraints, similar to btree, but please follow the work to make sure
> that no work is wasted.
>
> Also, I don't see a problem with using the same hacks in the hash index
> code as is used in the btree index code. If you see a better way, or if
> you think index AM changes would be useful to you as well, you should
> probably open that discussion.
>
> I was trying to provide an alternative to an index AM API change,
> because I thought there might be some resistance to that. However, if
> there are multiple index AMs that can make use of it, there is a
> stronger case for an API change.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
I will take a look at that patch. My thought was to use the same
process as the btree support for unique indexes since it has been
well tested and optimized.
Thanks,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2009-07-14 21:10:00 | [PATCH] DefaultACLs |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-07-14 20:28:13 | Re: Alpha release process |