On 2014-06-17 10:26:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> > Here's an updated version of this patch, with fixes to all the bugs
> >> > reported so far. Thanks to Thom Brown, Jaime Casanova, Erik Rijkers and
> >> > Amit Kapila for the reports.
> >>
> >> I'm not very happy with the use of a separate relation fork for
> >> storing this data.
> >
> > Here's a new version of this patch. Now the revmap is not stored in a
> > separate fork, but together with all the regular data, as explained
> > elsewhere in the thread.
>
> Cool.
>
> Have you thought more about this comment from Heikki?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52495DD3.9010809@vmware.com
Is there actually a significant usecase behind that wish or just a
general demand for being generic? To me it seems fairly unlikely you'd
end up with something useful by doing a minmax index over bounding
boxes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
