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

Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: KNNGiST for knn-search (WIP)
Date: 2009-12-31 12:26:46
Message-ID: 407d949e0912310426n29880592r3b1be575c716a0fe@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From my point of view, what makes a patch invasive is the likelihood
> that it might break something other than itself.  For example, your
> patch touches the core planner code and the core GIST code, so it
> seems possible that adding support for this feature might break
> something else in one of those areas.

It doesn't seem obvious to me that this is a high-risk patch. It's
touching the planner which is tricky but it's not the kind of massive
overhaul that touches every module that HOT or HS were.  I'm really
glad HS got in before the end because lots of people with different
areas of expertise and different use cases are going to get to
exercise it in the time remaining. This patch I would expect
relatively few people to need to try it out before any oversights are
caught.

-- 
greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nicolas BarbierDate: 2009-12-31 12:45:49
Subject: Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking
Previous:From: Nicolas BarbierDate: 2009-12-31 12:20:32
Subject: Re: A third lock method

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