Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > In reading through the TODO list, I noticed a few things that I think > > are done, may be done, or may be partially done. See below. > > Thoughts? ...Robert > > > Add missing operators for geometric data types > > - this is at least partly done. not sure if it is entirely done. > > I think you are thinking of Teodor's point_ops patch, but what that > did was add GIST index support for some existing geometric operators. > This TODO item suffers from the all-too-common sin of being uselessly > vague; it doesn't identify what operators it thinks are missing.
The full TODO item text is: Add missing operators for geometric data types Some geometric types do not have the full suite of geometric operators, e.g. box @> point * point_ops for GiST but we now have the @> operator mentioned: pg_catalog | @> | box | point | boolean | contains? so I have removed this TODO item. > > Add UNIQUE capability to non-btree indexes > > - This is one application of exclusion constraints, so I'd say this is done. > > I think exclusion constraints address this as much as it needs to be > addressed for GIST and GIN, neither of which have "equality" as a core > concept. Hash, however, does have that. So I'd vote for narrowing the > entry to "support UNIQUE natively in hash indexes" and moving it to the > hash-index section. Agreed, moved. > > Clean up VACUUM FULL's klugy transaction management > > - I think this is moot with the new cluster-based VF. > > Right, that one's either done or no longer relevant depending on how you > want to look at it. Agreed, removed. > There is another TODO item that I was just struck by while reading your > response to Joseph Adams: > > Fix system views like pg_stat_all_tables to use set-returning > functions, rather than views of per-column functions > > What is the point of this proposal? The reason for the per-column function > implementation was to allow people to slice and dice the underlying data > their own way. Changing to monolithic SRFs would make that harder, and > I don't see that it's buying anything especially useful. I'd vote for > taking this off unless someone can explain why it's an improvement. Agreed, removed. I wasn't aware why we implemented this as slices. I now assume it was for performance reasons. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers