Re: TODO list updates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Subject | Re: TODO list updates |
Date | |
Msg-id | 603c8f071003261153t68034965k49cf5196898f8933@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: TODO list updates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: TODO list updates
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> In reading through the TODO list, I noticed a few things that I think >> are done, may be done, or may be partially done. See below. >> Thoughts? ...Robert > >> Add missing operators for geometric data types >> - this is at least partly done. not sure if it is entirely done. > > I think you are thinking of Teodor's point_ops patch, but what that > did was add GIST index support for some existing geometric operators. > This TODO item suffers from the all-too-common sin of being uselessly > vague; it doesn't identify what operators it thinks are missing. Well, I'm thinking of that because that TODO item has a reference to the point_ops patch. I think we should remove this item and replace it with any more specific suggestions someone cares to raise. >> Implement full support for window framing clauses. >> - Not sure if we made any progress on this or not. > > We made some progress for 9.0, but there's still a lot of unimplemented > territory. Perhaps it could be made more specific. >> Add UNIQUE capability to non-btree indexes >> - This is one application of exclusion constraints, so I'd say this is done. > > I think exclusion constraints address this as much as it needs to be > addressed for GIST and GIN, neither of which have "equality" as a core > concept. Hash, however, does have that. So I'd vote for narrowing the > entry to "support UNIQUE natively in hash indexes" and moving it to the > hash-index section. As far as I know, exclusion constraints would work with hash opclasses also. Do you think there's an advantage to having something that is hash-specific a la the btree-specific stuff we already have? >> [GIN] Support empty indexed values (such as zero-element arrays) properly >> - I think this might be done but I'm not sure. > > Not done, not even started. See the referenced discussions, or the > limitations acknowledged here: > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/gin-limit.html OK. >> Clean up VACUUM FULL's klugy transaction management >> - I think this is moot with the new cluster-based VF. > > Right, that one's either done or no longer relevant depending on how you > want to look at it. OK. > There is another TODO item that I was just struck by while reading your > response to Joseph Adams: > > Fix system views like pg_stat_all_tables to use set-returning > functions, rather than views of per-column functions > > What is the point of this proposal? The reason for the per-column function > implementation was to allow people to slice and dice the underlying data > their own way. Changing to monolithic SRFs would make that harder, and > I don't see that it's buying anything especially useful. I'd vote for > taking this off unless someone can explain why it's an improvement. I assumed it would be faster and less likely to return inconsistent results. If that's not the case then I agree. ...Robert
pgsql-hackers by date: