Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Remove lossy-operator RECHECK flag?

I wrote:
> I've committed changes that move the determination of whether recheck is
> required into the index AMs.  Right now, GIST and GIN just always set
> the recheck flag to TRUE.  Obviously that control should be pushed down
> to the opclass consistent() functions, but I don't know that code well
> enough to be clear on exactly what should happen.  Are you willing to
> do that part?

Actually, I think I figured it out.  Please look over the GIST/GIN parts
of this patch and see if they're OK with you.

This is still WIP because I haven't touched any contrib code, but
as far as the main backend goes I think it's ready to apply.

            regards, tom lane

> Actually, I think I figured it out.  Please look over the GIST/GIN parts
> of this patch and see if they're OK with you.

Looks good, thank you.

Why don't use suggested way for GIN index over tsvector?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00812.php
It's nothing to cost light optimization...

> This is still WIP because I haven't touched any contrib code, but
> as far as the main backend goes I think it's ready to apply.

Patch to all contrib modules:
http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/contrib.patch.gz


--
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
                                                    WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> Why don't use suggested way for GIN index over tsvector?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00812.php

I had forgotten the details :-(.  Will adopt that code.

>> This is still WIP because I haven't touched any contrib code, but
>> as far as the main backend goes I think it's ready to apply.

> Patch to all contrib modules:
> http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/contrib.patch.gz

Ooops, we duplicated work :-(.  Will compare with your version before
applying.

            regards, tom lane