David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyone against simplifying matters by getting rid of
>> pg_am.amindexnulls?
> I guess the only potential use for it would be for some kind of am
> that *couldn't* index nulls out of the gate. Might their be such AMs
> on the horizon?
Well, there are AMs around already that can't index nulls: hash is one,
and GIN was one until an hour ago. The question though is whether
anything outside the AM needs to know about that behavior. Between
amclusterable, amsearchnulls, and amoptionalkey, I believe that we have
quite enough flags already to cover what anything else actually
needs-to-know about the AM's behavior.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
