Re: knngist patch support
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>, tomas@tuxteam.de, "Ragi Y. Burhum" <rburhum@gmail.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-02-14T04:05:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- syscache-macros-v1.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v1
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> ... >> 2. Modify pg_amop by adding a new column amopcategory, probably either >> int2 or maybe even just char. >> ... >> I'm not prepared to endorse doing #3 in core for 9.0, but I wonder if >> it would be feasible to think about doing #1 and #2 and putting >> something into contrib for #3. > > No, we are not touching the system catalogs for this in 9.0, much less > fooling with any planner logic. If it had been submitted a few months > earlier that could have happened, but we are barely 48 hours away from > alpha freeze. The only part of this that I think can even be considered > at this point is to do a backwards-compatible source code upgrade that > will decouple the various call sites from knowledge of exactly how many > key columns the syscaches allow. And even that is not for the benefit > of this feature; it's mainly to minimize breakage of other patches > that will be developed between now and whenever knngist does land. > (IOW, I agree with your point that making the call syntax change now > is the least painful time to do that.) OK. In that case, any objections to my applying the attached patch, which I believe implements this as you suggested? ...Robert