On 2014-06-17 10:26:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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
Is there actually a significant usecase behind that wish or just a general demand for being generic? To me it seems fairly unlikely you'd end up with something useful by doing a minmax index over bounding boxes. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
