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: | 3580DE5E.7D57923A@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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...
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lendvary Gyorgy | 1998-06-12 08:30:17 | update by one transaction |
Previous Message | Maarten Boekhold | 1998-06-12 07:47:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Libpq++ and RH5.1 |