| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Date: | 2016-10-21 23:12:36 |
| Message-ID: | 28768.1477091556@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, I think that this is a really promising direction, but also that
>> you should try very hard to try to get out from under this 6-byte PK
>> limitation. That seems really ugly, and in practice it probably means
>> your PK is probably going to be limited to int4, which is kind of sad
>> since it leaves people using int8 or text PKs out in the cold.
> I think we could just add a new type, unsigned 6 byte int, specifically
> for this purpose.
I think that's a really bad idea, because after you've fixed this
hopefully-temporary limitation, we'll still be stuck carrying this
weird type forever. Besides which, doesn't the existing TID type
already serve the purpose?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Serge Rielau | 2016-10-21 23:15:36 | Fast Default WIP patch for discussion |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-10-21 23:04:10 | Re: Indirect indexes |