On May 22, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems probably workable given that we expect the pending list to be
> of fairly constrained size. However, the commit message referenced
> upthread also muttered darkly about GIN's partial match logic not working
> in amgettuple. I do not recall the details of that issue, but unless we
> can solve that one too, there's not much use in fixing this one.
Well, what about a GiST operator family/class for arrays?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-05-22 19:31:08|
|Subject: Re: WIP: parameterized function scan|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-05-22 18:01:39|
|Subject: Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns
of an index|