Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdtK6xtxptMP58MAwMN=d6zp-MGhb8Mii7ufS3P8t_7j1A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> I thought abut that another time and I decided that it would be safer
> to use 13th bit in index tuple flags. There are already attempt to
> use whole 6 bytes of tid for not heap pointer information [1]. Thus, it
> would be safe to use 13th bit for indicating alternative offset meaning
> in pivot tuples, because it wouldn't block further work. Revised patchset
> in the attachment implements it.
This is definitely not the only time someone has talked about this
13th bit -- it's quite coveted. It also came up with UPSERT, and with
WARM. That's just the cases that I can personally remember.
I'm glad that you found a way to make this work, that will keep things
flexible for future patches, and make testing easier. I think that we
can find a flexible representation that makes almost everyone happy.
OK, good.
I didn't have time to look at this properly today, but I will try to
do so tomorrow.
Great, I'm looking forward your feedback.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: