On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: >> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Thinking about it again, it seems to me that a much narrower patch >>> could solve the specific forms of the problem that the PostGIS folk >>> are seeing. Instead of trying to have a general-purpose method of >>> preventing repeat de-toasting, we could just prevent it for inner >>> indexscans by having ExecIndexEvalRuntimeKeys() detoast anything it's >>> passing to the index AM. > >> With this patch, are there still situations where we should be concerned >> about repeated de-toasting, or does this solve the biggest part of the >> problem? > > Well, it solves the case people have actually complained about (twice > now). I originally attempted to solve a larger set of cases, but it's > not clear there's enough value in that.
How related is this issue? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00369.php ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
