Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Date: 2008-07-24 20:30:09
Message-ID: 10899.1216931409@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> - GiST already supports both scan directions in theory, but page split may
> change order between forward and backward scans (user-defined pageSplit doesn't
> preserve order of tuples). Holding of split until end of scan will produce
> unacceptable concurrency level.

> - GIN doesn't support backward scan direction and will not support in close
> future.

Okay. I'll see about fixing the planner to not assume that GIST or GIN
indexscans are scrollable.

The cleanest way to do this is to introduce a new bool column in pg_am
rather than hard-wiring assumptions about which AMs can do it. However
(a) that's not back-patchable and (b) it'll create a merge conflict with
your patch, if you're still going to add a new AM function column.
I think that aminsertcleanup per se isn't needed, but if we want an
"amanalyze" there'd still be a conflict. Where are we on that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-24 20:37:09 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2008-07-24 19:31:52 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2008-07-25 00:15:13 Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2008-07-24 19:24:11 Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements