Re: BRIN range operator class - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: BRIN range operator class
Date
Msg-id 20150505212222.GP2523@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BRIN range operator class  (Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>)
Responses Re: BRIN range operator class  (Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Can you please explain what is the purpose of patch 07?  I'm not sure I
understand; are we trying to avoid having to add pg_amproc entries for
these operators and instead piggy-back on btree opclass definitions?
Not too much in love with that idea; I see that there is less tedium in
that the brin opclass definition is simpler.  One disadvantage is a 3x
increase in the number of syscache lookups to get the function you need,
unless I'm reading things wrong.  Maybe this is not performance critical.

Anyway I tried applying it on isolation, and found that it fails the
assertion that tests the "union" support proc in brininsert.  That
doesn't seem okay.  I mean, it's okay not to run the test for the
inclusion opclasses, but why does it now fail in minmax which was
previously passing?  Couldn't figure it out.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues