On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 10:11:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Blake Smith <blakesmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The combined entry is used to support "contains (@>)" queries, and the key > >> only item is used to support "key contains (?)" queries. This change seems > >> to help especially with hstore keys that have high cardinalities. Downsides > >> of this change is that it requires an index rebuild, and the index will be > >> larger in size. > > > Index rebuild would be a problem only for minor releases, > > That's completely false; people have expected major releases to be > on-disk-compatible for several years now. While there probably will be > future releases in which we are willing to break storage compatibility, > a contrib module doesn't get to dictate that. > > What might be a practical solution, especially if this isn't always a > win (which seems likely given the index-bloat risk), is to make hstore > offer two different GIN index opclasses, one that works the traditional > way and one that works this way. > > Another thing that needs to be taken into account here is Oleg and > Teodor's in-progress work on extending hstore: > https://www.pgcon.org/2013/schedule/events/518.en.html > I'm not sure if this patch would conflict with that at all, but it > needs to be considered.
We can disallow in-place upgrades for clusters that use certain contrib modules --- we have done that in the past. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
