On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Here's an updated version of this patch, with fixes to all the bugs >> > reported so far. Thanks to Thom Brown, Jaime Casanova, Erik Rijkers and >> > Amit Kapila for the reports. >> >> I'm not very happy with the use of a separate relation fork for >> storing this data. > > Here's a new version of this patch. Now the revmap is not stored in a > separate fork, but together with all the regular data, as explained > elsewhere in the thread.
Cool. Have you thought more about this comment from Heikki? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52495dd3.9010...@vmware.com I'm concerned that we could end up with one index type of this general nature for min/max type operations, and then another very similar index type for geometric operators or text-search operators or what have you. Considering the overhead in adding and maintaining an index AM, I think we should try to be sure that we've done a reasonably solid job making each one as general as we reasonably can. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
