Re: Hash Indexes

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-30T00:53:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I, for one, agree with this position.
>
> Well, I, for one, find it frustrating.  It seems pretty unhelpful to
> bring this up only after the code has already been written.  The first
> post on this thread was on May 10th.  The first version of the patch
> was posted on June 16th.  This position was first articulated on
> September 15th.

Really, what do we have to lose at this point? It's not very difficult
to do what Andres proposes.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


Commits

  1. Remove _hash_wrtbuf() in favor of calling MarkBufferDirty().

  2. Fix race introduced by 6d46f4783efe457f74816a75173eb23ed8930020.

  3. Improve hash index bucket split behavior.

  4. Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.