Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZR-1+To-tujJ8DGf444rGBhbqfpCAO7Rf_003sYwZxX6w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Okay, then. I concede the point: We should support the datum case as > you outline, since it is simpler than any alternative. It probably > won't even be necessary to formalize the idea that finished > abbreviated keys must be pass-by-value (at least not for the benefit > of this functionality); if someone writes an opclass that generates > pass-by-reference abbreviated keys (I think that might actually make > sense, although I'm being imaginative), it simply won't work for the > datum sort case, which is probably fine. I mean that a restriction formally preventing use of abbreviation with pass-by-value types isn't necessary. That was something that I thought we'd have to document as a restriction (for the benefit of your datum sort patch), without considering that it could simply be skipped by only considering state->datumTypeByVal (which is what you've proposed here). This requirement is much less likely than wanting to create pass-by-value abbreviated keys for a pass-by-value datatype (which, as I go into above, seems at least possible). This seems like a very insignificant restriction, not worth formalizing or even mentioning in code comments. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: