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
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? |
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 |