Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2016-04-27T21:47:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 4/27/16 5:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> So, in case it needs to be
> said, I'll say it: You've chosen a very ambitious set of projects to
> work on, by any standard. I think it's a good thing that you've been
> ambitious, and I don't suggest changing that, since I think that you
> have commensurate skill. But, in order to be successful in these
> projects, patience and resolve are very important.

+1.

This is very exciting work and I look forward to seeing it continue.
The patch was perhaps not a good fit for the last CF of 9.6 but that
doesn't mean it can't have a bright future.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net


Commits

  1. Adjust INCLUDE index truncation comments and code.

  2. Add commentary explaining why MaxIndexTuplesPerPage calculation is safe.

  3. Indexes with INCLUDE columns and their support in B-tree

  4. Add amcheck verification of heap relations belonging to btree indexes.

  5. Doc: move info for btree opclass implementors into main documentation.

  6. Doc: mention that you can't PREPARE TRANSACTION after NOTIFY.

  7. Remove dedicated B-tree root-split record types.

  8. Restructure index access method API to hide most of it at the C level.

  9. Split _bt_insertonpg to two functions.

  10. Major overhaul of btree index code. Eliminate special BTP_CHAIN logic for