|From:||Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
18.01.2016 01:02, David Rowley пишет:
> On 14 January 2016 at 08:24, David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>>
> I will try to review the omit_opclass_4.0.patch soon.
> Hi, as promised, here's my review of the omit_opclass_4.0.patch patch.
Thank you again. All mentioned points are fixed and patches are merged.
I hope it's all right now. Please check comments one more time. I rather
doubt that I wrote everything correctly.
> Also this makes me think that the name ii_KeyAttrNumbers is now
> out-of-date, as it contains
> the including columns too by the looks of it. Maybe it just needs to
> drop the "Key" and become
> "ii_AttrNumbers". It would be interesting to hear what others think of
> I'm also wondering if indexkeys is still a good name for the
> IndexOptInfo struct member.
> Including columns are not really keys, but I feel renaming that might
> cause a fair bit of code churn, so I'd be interested to hear what
> other's have to say.
I agree that KeyAttrNumbers and indexkeys are a bit confusing names, but
I'd like to keep them at least in this patch.
It's may be worth doing "index structures refactoring" as a separate patch.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Anastasia Lubennikova||2016-01-19 17:15:46||Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2016-01-19 17:04:59||Re: checkpointer continuous flushing|