| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Date: | 2019-01-14 23:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | 28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-11-07 14:25:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, it seems likely to me that large parts of this patch need to
>> be pulled out, rewritten, and then put back in different places than
>> they are today. I'm not sure if a complete revert is the best next
>> step, or if we can make progress without that.
> We've not really made progress on this. I continue to think that we
> ought to revert this feature, and then work to re-merge it an
> architecturally correct way afterwards. Other opinions?
Given the lack of progress, I'd agree with a revert. It's probably
already going to be a bit painful to undo due to subsequent changes,
so we shouldn't wait too much longer.
Do we want to revert entirely, or leave the "recheck_on_update" option
present but nonfunctional?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-14 23:09:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2019-01-14 23:00:35 | Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs |