Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date: 2018-04-07 17:36:50
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkGOA9j4wtteDrpXLTOZ13hFSSBf7YYUnqcSt8pv-E6HA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> wrote:
> On close look, bts_btentry.ip_posid is not used anymore, I change
> bts_btentry type to BlockNumber. As result, BTEntrySame() is removed.

That seems like a good idea.

> I'm not very happy with massive usage of
> ItemPointerGetBlockNumberNoCheck(&(itup->t_tid)), suggest to wrap it to
> macro something like this:
> #define BTreeInnerTupleGetDownLink(itup) \
> ItemPointerGetBlockNumberNoCheck(&(itup->t_tid))

Agreed. We do that with GIN.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-04-07 17:45:21 Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2018-04-07 17:33:53 Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE