Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Pritam Baral <pritam(at)pritambaral(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses
Date: 2017-03-24 14:50:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Pritam,

On 3/17/17 5:41 PM, Pritam Baral wrote:
> So sorry. I'm attaching the correct version of the original with this,
> in case you want to test the limited implementation, because I still
> have to go through Tom's list of suggestions.
> BTW, the patch is for applying on top of REL9_6_2, and while I
> suspect it may work on master too, I haven't tested it since the
> original submission (Feb 23).
>> Also, I noticed that patch haven't regression tests. Some mention of
>> this optimization in docs is also nice to have. > > ------ >
>> Alexander Korotkov > Postgres Professional:
>> > The Russian Postgres Company

This thread has been idle for a week. Please respond and/or post a new
patch by 2017-03-28 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked
"Returned with Feedback".


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2017-03-24 15:04:51 Logical replication SnapBuildInitalSnapshot spelling
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-03-24 14:49:24 Re: logical replication apply to run with sync commit off by default