Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
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 20:02:08
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks to everyone, pushed.

Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> 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.

Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2018-04-07 20:04:38 Sv: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-07 20:00:34 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning