Re: GiST nitpicks I want to discuss (and maybe eventually fix)

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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