Re: Proposal - Enabling btree_gist by default

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alastair Turner <minion(at)decodable(dot)me>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal - Enabling btree_gist by default
Date: 2026-01-05 01:18:23
Message-ID: 1197543.1767575903@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alastair Turner <minion(at)decodable(dot)me> writes:
> Before wading into all of that - what is the view on enabling btree_gist by
> default in initdb?

Absolutely, positively not until we've dealt with the inet mess:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/2483812.1754072263%40sss.pgh.pa.us

Even once that dust settles, I'm not sure that "install the extension
by default" is an acceptable approach. In the past we've usually
preferred to migrate functionality into core.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2026-01-05 01:31:06 Re: Correction of RowMark Removal During Sel-Join Elimination
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2026-01-05 01:09:56 Re: Use Postgres as meson wrap subproject