Re: Index Skip Scan

Greetings,

* Jesper Pedersen (jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com) wrote:
> On 08/16/2018 02:36 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Not sure where this came from, but I don't think it's particularly good
> >to be suggesting that one feature is more important than another or that
> >we need to have one wait for another as this seems to imply. I'd
> >certainly really like to see PG finally have skipping scans, for one
> >thing, and it seems like with some effort that might be able to happen
> >for v12. I'm not convinced that we're going to get pluggable storage to
> >happen in v12 and I don't really agree with recommending that people
> >hold off on making improvements to things because it's coming.
>
> My point was that I know this patch needs work, so any feedback that get it
> closer to a solution will help.
>
> Pluggable storage may / may not add new requirements, but it is up to the
> people working on that, some of which are Committers, to take time "off" to
> provide feedback for this patch in order steer me in right direction.

I don't think it's really necessary for this work to be suffering under
some concern that pluggable storage will make it have to change. Sure,
it might, but it also very well might not. For my 2c, anyway, this
seems likely to get into the tree before pluggable storage does and it's
pretty unlikely to be the only thing that that work will need to be
prepared to address when it happens.

> Work can happen in parallel, and I'm definitely not recommending that people
> hold off on any patches that they want to provide feedback for, or submit
> for a CommitFest.

Yes, work can happen in parallel, and I don't really think there needs
to be a concern about some other patch set when it comes to getting this
patch committed.

Thanks!

Stephen