| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Building infrastructure for B-Tree deduplication that recognizes when opclass equality is also equivalence |
| Date: | 2019-12-19 20:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZMMzGrHd-5vugGzj6XHQAOBK6ZyUBBa7aFxChgwcQx5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 4:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I think that that's probably not desirable. There should at least be a
> strong practical advantage if we go that way. This would mean ALTER
> OPERATOR CLASS could change the "substance" of an opclass, which is
> fundamentally different from what it can do already (it currently just
> changes the owner, or the schema that it is stored in).
My impression is that this is more of an implementation restriction
than a design goal. I don't really remember the details, but it seems
to me that there were locking and/or cache invalidation problems with
making ALTER OPERATOR CLASS do more substantive things -- and that it
was because of those problems, not a lack of desire, that we didn't
support it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-12-19 20:31:50 | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-19 19:57:01 | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) |