Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David E. Wheeler
> <da...@justatheory.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> It seems like maybe we could work around this by remembering the
>>> contents of the pending list throughout the scan. Every time we hit a
>>> TID while scanning the main index, we check whether we already
>>> returned it from the pending list; if so, we skip it, but if not, we
>>> return it.
>> Should this go onto the To-Do list, then?
> If someone other than me can confirm that it's not a stupid approach,
> I would say yes.
It seems probably workable given that we expect the pending list to be
of fairly constrained size. However, the commit message referenced
upthread also muttered darkly about GIN's partial match logic not working
in amgettuple. I do not recall the details of that issue, but unless we
can solve that one too, there's not much use in fixing this one.
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
