| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 20:52:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSBEqkTLYBvJYXjUcyt2BJLyBRWC2CmriZYGW9FwAxZHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write
> assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going
> *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an
> assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just
> a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all.
You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to
always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this,
IMV.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2016-04-06 21:10:20 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-04-06 20:50:35 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |