Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
Date
Msg-id 10899.1216931409@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements  (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements  (Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?