Re: Q about InsertIndexResult

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Q about InsertIndexResult
Date: 2003-02-12 17:01:01
Message-ID: 3E4A7DCD.3000504@stack.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I can't offhand see a good reason to return the index tuple's tid.
One reason why existing interface is not good:
Who say, that for one heap tuple should exists only one index tuple?
For example, Oleg and Vadim Mikheev had discussian pair years ago about
indexing arrays by B-tree: for each heap tuple stores one index tuple per
element of array.

> There isn't any legitimate reason for anything outside the index AM
> to be doing anything directly with the index tuple.
> I dunno if it's worth the trouble to change it just to save one palloc
> per insert, though. If we ever decided that there was some other piece
> of information that the index AM should return, we'd have to change
> right back to returning a struct...
Agreed.

--
Teodor Sigaev
teodor(at)stack(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-02-12 17:01:48 Re: Options for growth
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-12 16:48:57 Re: Changing the default configuration