| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |
| Date: | 2013-11-15 18:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ1xaHEjvVowyQnJYarUsiRLR3DMozyxjRU0ayZ1mK6FA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 November 2013 15:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder if the level of abstraction is right.
That is the big question and not something to shy away from.
What is presented is not the first thought, by a long way. Andres'
contribution to the patch is mainly around this point, so the seq am
is designed with the needs of the main use case in mind.
I'm open to suggested changes but I would say that practical usage
beats changes suggested for purity.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2013-11-15 18:42:17 | Re: Minmax indexes (timings) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-11-15 18:26:51 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |