Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: AW: [HACKERS] now 6.4

From: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
To: Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
Cc: "'Bruce Momjian'" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] now 6.4
Date: 1998-06-12 07:53:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andreas Zeugswetter wrote:
> > Yep, I think this is do'able, UNLESS Vadim decides he needs to change
> > the structure of the data/index files.  At that point, we are lost.
> > In the past, we have made such changes, and they were very much needed.
> > Not sure about the 6.4 release, but no such changes have been made yet.
> I thought Vadim was going to change the oid in btree index files to ctid,
> in my opinion a very useful change. (Or was he intending to add it ?)
> Then a btree index rebuild would be necessary.

OID was removed from btree tuples ~ year ago.
Now I want to use heap tuple ID (referenced by index tuple)
as (last) part of index key and get rid of BT_CHAIN flag:
all keys will be UNIQUE and there will be no problems with
handling duplicate keys any more (idea (C) Oracle -:)

But this means that heap tuple id will be added to index
tuples on internal pages, not on the leaf ones...


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lendvary GyorgyDate: 1998-06-12 08:30:17
Subject: update by one transaction
Previous:From: Maarten BoekholdDate: 1998-06-12 07:47:21
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Libpq++ and RH5.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group