On 21.10.2016 22:54, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 10/21/16 2:48 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need that limitation (and vacuum will be simpler) if you add
>> the PK as another key, akin to:
>>>
>>> CREATE INDIRECT INDEX idx ON tab (a, b, c);
>>>
>>> turns into
>>>
>>> CREATE INDEX idx ON tab (a, b, c, pk);
>>
>>
>> I know I am late to this point but I wanted to present my mere user's
>> point of view.
>>
>> First I liked it, as does not introduce yet another syntax to learn.
>
> I believe you mis-understood what Claudio was saying. He's not
> suggesting an index with the PK on the end magically becomes an indirect
> index; he was saying that a "simple" way to overcome the 6 byte index
> TID limitation would be to store the PK as part of the index key. He
> used existing DDL to illustrate that, but that was just for
> illustration, not how this would actually be implemented.
Alright. Thanks for clarifying. :)
Cheers,
Sven
