| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree |
| Date: | 2012-07-28 22:37:47 |
| Message-ID: | 6222.1343515067@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 29.07.2012 00:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could possibly extend the API to allow a different type to be used
>> for this, but then it wouldn't be "reconstructed data" in any sense of
>> the word; so I think it'd be abuse of the concept --- which would come
>> back to bite us if we ever try to support index-only scans with SPGiST.
> I can see that for leaf nodes, but does that also hold for inner nodes?
I didn't explain myself terribly well, probably. Consider an opclass
that wants some private state like this and *also* needs to reconstruct
column data.
In principle I suppose we could do away with the reconstructed-data
support altogether, and consider that if you need that then it is just a
portion of the unspecified private state the opclass is holding. But
it's probably a bit late to remove bits of the opclass API.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anderson C. Carniel | 2012-07-29 00:36:22 | Re: PostgreSQLs Extension |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-07-28 22:33:47 | Re: New statistics for WAL buffer dirty writes |