| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Date: | 2022-01-19 08:32:36 |
| Message-ID: | eb09bec8-91bc-4210-948f-2976d9865435@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.01.22 09:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Of course, the main problem in this patch is that for most uses it
>>> requires btree_gist. I think we should consider moving that into
>>> core, or at least the support for types that are most relevant to this
>>> functionality, specifically the date/time types. Aside from user
>>> convenience, this would also allow writing more realistic test cases.
>>
>> I think this would be great too. How realistic do you think it is? I
>> figured since exclusion constraints are also pretty useless without
>> btree_gist, it wasn't asking too much to have people install the
>> extension, but still it'd be better if it were all built in.
>
> IMO, if this temporal feature is to happen, btree_gist needs to be moved
> into core first. Having to install an extension in order to use an
> in-core feature like this isn't going to be an acceptable experience.
I have started a separate thread about this question.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-01-19 08:52:36 | Re: Showing I/O timings spent reading/writing temp buffers in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2022-01-19 08:31:45 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |