Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

22.01.2016 01:47, David Rowley:
> On 20 January 2016 at 06:08, Anastasia Lubennikova
> <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 18.01.2016 01:02, David Rowley пишет:
>>
>> On 14 January 2016 at 08:24, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I will try to review the omit_opclass_4.0.patch soon.
>>
>> Hi, as promised, here's my review of the omit_opclass_4.0.patch patch.
>>
>> Thank you again. All mentioned points are fixed and patches are merged.
>> I hope it's all right now. Please check comments one more time. I rather doubt that I wrote everything correctly.
>
> Thanks for updating.
>
> +        for the searching or ordering of records can defined in the
>
> should be:
>
> +        for the searching or ordering of records can be defined in the
>
> but perhaps "defined" should be "included".
>
> The following is still quite wasteful. CopyIndexTuple() does a
> palloc() and memcpy(), and then you throw that away if
> rel->rd_index->indnatts != rel->rd_index->indnkeyatts. I think you
> just need to add an "else" and move the CopyIndexTuple() below the if.
>
> item = (IndexTuple) PageGetItem(lpage, itemid);
>    right_item = CopyIndexTuple(item);
> + if (rel->rd_index->indnatts != rel->rd_index->indnkeyatts)
> + right_item = index_reform_tuple(rel, right_item,
> rel->rd_index->indnatts, rel->rd_index->indnkeyatts);
Fixed. Thank you for reminding me.
> Tom also commited
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=65c5fcd353a859da9e61bfb2b92a99f12937de3b
> So it looks like you'll need to update your pg_am.h changes. Looks
> like you'll need a new struct member in IndexAmRoutine and just
> populate that new member in each of the *handler functions listed in
> pg_am.h
>
> -#define Natts_pg_am 30
> +#define Natts_pg_am 31
Done. I hope that my patch is close to the commit too.

Thank you again for review.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company