| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Date: | 2016-10-21 20:46:40 |
| Message-ID: | 69b6a285-9afc-c224-4b0a-eefee3d8a4e7@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/19/16 7:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I think that this is a really promising direction, but also that
> you should try very hard to try to get out from under this 6-byte PK
> limitation. That seems really ugly, and in practice it probably means
> your PK is probably going to be limited to int4, which is kind of sad
> since it leaves people using int8 or text PKs out in the cold.
My impression is that int4 is by far the most popular PK type. Even if
the initial implementation is limited to that I think it'd have a lot of
potential.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-10-21 20:54:15 | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2016-10-21 20:45:38 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |