Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10899.1216931409@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > - GiST already supports both scan directions in theory, but page split may > change order between forward and backward scans (user-defined pageSplit doesn't > preserve order of tuples). Holding of split until end of scan will produce > unacceptable concurrency level. > - GIN doesn't support backward scan direction and will not support in close > future. Okay. I'll see about fixing the planner to not assume that GIST or GIN indexscans are scrollable. The cleanest way to do this is to introduce a new bool column in pg_am rather than hard-wiring assumptions about which AMs can do it. However (a) that's not back-patchable and (b) it'll create a merge conflict with your patch, if you're still going to add a new AM function column. I think that aminsertcleanup per se isn't needed, but if we want an "amanalyze" there'd still be a conflict. Where are we on that? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: