On 10 March 2016 at 06:27, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > > On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> > >>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think > >>>> that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both. > >>> > >>> The exclusion of toast indexes is something we can remove also, I have > >>> recently discovered. When we access toast data we ignore MVCC, but we > >>> still > >>> have the toast pointer and chunkid to use for rechecking our scan > >>> results. > >>> So a later patch will add some rechecks. > >> > >> Ah, interesting, glad to hear. I take it you're pushing your patch > >> soon, then? > > > > ISTM that this patch should be "returned with feedback" or "rejected" > based > > on the thread. I'm marking it "waiting for author" for the time being. > > I think that we are still waiting for some input from Simon here... > Simon, are you going to finish wrapping up your other patch? > Yes, I have done the research, so think patch should be rejected now. Thanks to everyone for their input. It's good to have alternate approaches. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
