Re: Indirect indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Indirect indexes
Date
Msg-id 69b6a285-9afc-c224-4b0a-eefee3d8a4e7@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Indirect indexes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Indirect indexes
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/19/16 7:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I think that this is a really promising direction, but also that
> you should try very hard to try to get out from under this 6-byte PK
> limitation.  That seems really ugly, and in practice it probably means
> your PK is probably going to be limited to int4, which is kind of sad
> since it leaves people using int8 or text PKs out in the cold.

My impression is that int4 is by far the most popular PK type. Even if 
the initial implementation is limited to that I think it'd have a lot of 
potential.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Indirect indexes