| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree |
| Date: | 2012-08-20 15:32:33 |
| Message-ID: | 872.1345476753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 17:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> which would come
>> back to bite us if we ever try to support index-only scans with SPGiST.
> I'm confused:
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=92203624934095163f8b57b5b3d7bbd2645da2c8
Sorry, I was being imprecise there. What I meant was that an opclass
that abused the reconstructed-value storage for something else might
have problems supporting index-only scans.
If we think opclasses might need private storage for index searches, we
should add that as a new part of the API, not tell them to misuse this
part.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-20 15:39:05 | Re: Avoiding repeated snapshot computation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-20 15:25:40 | Re: New WAL code dumps core trivially on replay of bad data |