From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GiST nitpicks I want to discuss (and maybe eventually fix) |
Date: | 2025-10-07 08:52:54 |
Message-ID: | 68e4d4e6.a70a0220.2225bb.6ed7@mx.google.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 12:02:21AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 23:53, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> > Makes sense. I hope one day we will add a catalog field to track
> > index creation version. This would pave the way to get rid of
> > invalid GiST tuples and return this flag too. We can use it for
> > something better.
>
> In the GIN index we have an index creation version, and it is placed
> on the metapage. So does btree, if i'm not mistaken . So, the index
> version is stored in data, not in catalog. I doubt we will support two
> technologies for one purpose. Since GiST index has no metapage, I
> doubt we will be successful here.
I always found it klunky that you need (AFAIK) an extension
(pageinspect) to figure out the btree/gin index version via its
meta-page and ISTM that this would be useful information to be stored in
the catalog.
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Bidoc | 2025-10-07 08:55:14 | oid2name : add objects file path |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-10-07 08:51:13 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |