Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-05-11T12:56:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 11 May 2018 at 05:32, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2018-05-10 23:25:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > I still don't think, as commented upon by Tom and me upthread, that we
>> > want this feature in the current form.
>>
>> Was this concern ever addressed, or did the patch just get committed anyway?
>
> No. Simon just claimed it's not actually a concern:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+j+vtskPhEp_GmqmEqdWaKSt2KbOtee0yz-my+Agh0aRPw@mail.gmail.com
>
> And yes, it got committed without doing squat to address the
> architectural concerns.

"Squat" means "zero, nothing" to me. So that comment would be inaccurate.

I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing and grooming the patch, and
I am happy that Konstantin has changed his patch significantly in
response to those reviews, as well as explaining why the patch is fine
as it is. It's a useful patch that PostgreSQL needs, so all good.

I have no problem if you want to replace this with an even better
design in a later release.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Finish reverting "recheck_on_update" patch.