Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible
Date: 2020-01-10 15:31:30
Message-ID: 29242.1578670290@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> So, I think v10 is a version of patch, which can be committed after
> some cleanup. And we can try doing better nulls handling in a separate
> patch.

The cfbot reports that this doesn't pass regression testing.
I haven't looked into why not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Verite 2020-01-10 15:45:15 Re: [WIP] UNNEST(REFCURSOR): allowing SELECT to consume data from a REFCURSOR
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-01-10 15:08:20 Re: Fixing parallel make of libpq