On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see the "returns index keys" idea as being killed by or killing > > this concept. Returning keys is valid and useful when we can, but there > > are other considerations that, in some use cases, will be a dominant > > factor. > > The patch as-submitted was a killer for the concept, because it > automatically discarded information and there was no way to prevent > that.
Understood. > To be acceptable, a GIT patch would have to be optional and it > would have to expose in the catalogs whether a given index was lossy > in this way or not (so that the planner could know whether a plan based > on returning index keys would work). Would you see it as a separate index type, or a modification of the b-tree (with option enabled via a "storage parameter")? If it was the latter, then perhaps there could be a future for the GIT patch after all. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
