Re: Indirect indexes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-06T16:00:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Also, vacuuming: my answer continues to be that the killtuple > interface should be good enough, ... How deeply do you believe in that answer? I mean, I grant you that there are many use cases for which that will work fine, but continuously-advancing keyspace is an example of a use case where the index will grow without bound unless you REINDEX periodically, and that sucks. It's not clear to me that it's 100% unacceptable to commit the feature with no other provision to remove dead tuples, but if you do, I think it's likely to be a fairly major operational problem for people who actually try to use this in production. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Change some test macros to return true booleans
- fce4609d5e5b 9.6.2 landed
- e0f4a80ee515 9.3.16 landed
- 75c155f65b04 9.4.11 landed
- 5f4ae4f3cd58 9.5.6 landed
- 594e61a1de03 10.0 landed
- 5462e3486dfe 9.2.20 landed