Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> If *that* is a use case we're interested in, the incoming tuples could 
>> be accumulated in backend-private memory, and inserted into the index at 
>> commit. That would be a lot simpler, with no need to worry about 
>> concurrent inserts or vacuums.
> 
> Doesn't work --- the index would yield wrong answers for later queries
> in the same transaction.

Queries would still need to check the backend-private list.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com