| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indexam API changes |
| Date: | 2008-04-08 12:23:13 |
| Message-ID: | 873apw5ydq.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> There's a bunch of mails in the patch queue about the indexam API, so we need
> to discuss that.
>
> The first question is: do we want to refactor the bitmap index scan API, if we
> don't have any immediate use for it? Namely, since we don't have anyone
> actively working on the bitmap index patch nor the git patch.
I haven't read the patch. My understanding from the discussion is that it
would allow callers of the indexam to receive a hunk of index pointers and
process them rather than have to wait for the complete index scan to finish
before processing any. Is that it?
In general I think we need to be more open to incremental improvements. I
think there are several fronts on which we refuse patches to do X because it's
useless without Y and have nobody working on Y because they would have to
solve X first.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-08 13:25:52 | Re: Partial match in GIN |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2008-04-08 10:54:09 | Re: Partial match in GIN |