Horton

Re: Minmax indexes

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-06-19T13:43:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com> writes:
> On 06/18/2014 12:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> So to implement a feature one now has to implement the most generic
>> variant as a prototype first? Really?

> Well, there is the inventor's paradox to consider.

I have not seen anyone demanding a different implementation in this
thread.  What *has* been asked for, and not supplied, is a concrete
defense of the particular level of generality that's been selected
in this implementation.  It's not at all clear to the rest of us
whether it was the right choice, and that is something that ought
to be asked now not later.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Refactor per-page logic common to all redo routines to a new function.

  2. Reduce use of heavyweight locking inside hash AM.

  3. Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.

  4. Major patch from Thomas Lockhart <Thomas.G.Lockhart@jpl.nasa.gov>