"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it theoretically possible to add support to btree for storing table along > with the indexed value?
That's what we need, all right. > This would obviously add overhead, so it would only > be done for spanning indexes. The index would also take up more space on > disk I guess. > When a new inherited table is created, all parent indices would be dropped > and recreated as spanning indices and vice versa. Seems like the hard way. Instead use a t_infomask bit in indextuples to indicate that the index entry points to a table other than the one its index is nominally associated with; if and only if this bit is set, the table OID follows the indextuple header. This way, you don't have to reindex just to create a child table, and you also don't pay any extra space cost for index entries that in fact point at the parent. There are a veritable ton of other issues to be resolved --- like how do we (efficiently) find all the indexes relevant to a given child table --- but the physical storage doesn't seem too complicated. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]