Horton

Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2016-04-06T20:52:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write
> assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going
> *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an
> assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just
> a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all.

You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to
always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this,
IMV.

-- 
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