Horton

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <a.kuzmenkov@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2018-04-06T17:42:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Thinking about that again, I found that we should relax our requirements to
> "minus infinity" items, because pg_upgraded indexes doesn't have any
> special bits set for those items.
>
> What do you think about applying following patch on the top of v14?

It's clearly necessary. Looks fine to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

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