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
I'm concerned that we could end up with one index type of this general
nature for min/max type operations, and then another very similar
index type for geometric operators or text-search operators or what
have you. Considering the overhead in adding and maintaining an index
AM, I think we should try to be sure that we've done a reasonably
solid job making each one as general as we reasonably can.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
