| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Q about InsertIndexResult |
| Date: | 2003-02-12 17:01:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3E4A7DCD.3000504@stack.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I can't offhand see a good reason to return the index tuple's tid.
One reason why existing interface is not good:
Who say, that for one heap tuple should exists only one index tuple?
For example, Oleg and Vadim Mikheev had discussian pair years ago about
indexing arrays by B-tree: for each heap tuple stores one index tuple per
element of array.
> There isn't any legitimate reason for anything outside the index AM
> to be doing anything directly with the index tuple.
> I dunno if it's worth the trouble to change it just to save one palloc
> per insert, though. If we ever decided that there was some other piece
> of information that the index AM should return, we'd have to change
> right back to returning a struct...
Agreed.
--
Teodor Sigaev
teodor(at)stack(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-02-12 17:01:48 | Re: Options for growth |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 16:48:57 | Re: Changing the default configuration |