Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-01-29T05:33:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Allow extensions to generate lossy index conditions.
- 74dfe58a5927 12.0 landed
-
Build out the planner support function infrastructure.
- a391ff3c3d41 12.0 landed
-
Create the infrastructure for planner support functions.
- 1fb57af92069 12.0 landed
-
Disable transforms that replaced AT TIME ZONE with RelabelType.
- c22ecc6562aa 10.0 cited
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 19:17, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > * Allow a normal term to match a functional index, e.g. WHERE x = > > 'abcdefgh' => WHERE substr(x, 1 , 5) = 'abcde' AND x = 'abcdefgh' > > I'm a bit confused about what you think this example means. I do > intend to work on letting extensions define rules for extracting > index clauses from function calls, because that's the requirement > that PostGIS is after in the thread that started this. I don't > know whether that would satisfy your concern, because I'm not clear > on what your concern is. > To be able to extract indexable clauses where none existed before. Hash functions assume that x = N => hash(x) = hash(N) AND x = N so I want to be able to assume x = K => f(x) = f(K) AND x = K for specific f() to allow indexable operations when we have an index on f(x) only -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services