Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1einrr-0008Oe-3B for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:59:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1einrp-0004JD-V8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:59:57 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1einrp-0004J3-Kw for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:59:57 +0000 Received: from mail-wr0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::244]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1einrm-0006TI-5I for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 20:59:56 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-x244.google.com with SMTP id a43so23510639wrc.4 for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:59:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k+h7AmJUx+MEYH/+SfXyAJeB/grOeNQNdTR++2ILDew=; b=GEIa/GCClGW/t51CRsqMmQN+R4MAAWxUz36UXsvpocY0rhdKxEavrYoRbRMpyhw/9K gggeIUb9USrQmq3LRs5RDAtdcdYWV9aO8S2Ao8bN0YLXtAP+Qmq9HNyGBkfsG58W9UKp jkAxwcaf3r4vMssmJdadgfBBHOiqsfi7kG83oNm8o0x7F3mH60rVIn53hpRUFfTOzKID stC7A4xU1o5DWIEXiGTYR2T4AeqTyY5bbwtkp4GRnR2vFvV4Zu69ixMzBJch0Z0v7HFX Xy46hswKrT+gusORO+7SN4DMFKTPZYETlz5T+C2HtGnx2S/oXLiibFjjwc3OrAIiL86k WLTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=k+h7AmJUx+MEYH/+SfXyAJeB/grOeNQNdTR++2ILDew=; b=sfQ0/4oy4U3v312j6QysswWRgcohdL2jdEugi+oDQGSlFP8+Dyc1rF5exz2Y4axd8X N3vO103XsVFaiC/z9F/8tqmDPAGuhKcM+ZAZgBfGBqoCoLwVk48Up/BKQJgkvVpbUEc+ zcplWhiXn5yWXP/IoIixMZ9z0omxrT+7dUnL03rovmHq3ktMr93uY/2r1AQRhsAH4K0h jDn2AUzMAEw45a7eg2FNP9f00yFe+X9ua6JvIZDB80mbLbV6NONimQoX0dFpJxZqKvlE 4tilC45DXfw7mqx31y3RYoW11zt1JK6RMJT87JrSoxep2uLRG8YxCd4KxXpcMApldeev brFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCY0GCFRzD+FpB666U6sOiD48mrJF3SWMCDRasWPdvaqsMJbLhv 8r8/4Ppe4JRYQh8Q1OvxEDhh6NMKyWv0B+oE/CjWEXDd4wcioBXTklCAaZfQ7PqV13y/13nhiCn hcHV1VjZ4/fF8JRVycxXG9zoZNXbn+PAkano8xTq0Pdd5zc3lDOeBtlbgk8t1ZsooanIsEztgtH uNn9PTSjLI X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225F7tGQNTvx1L6/L8zMhCNIJ/1nlt+sHmiUlsNtaIiYae4YHD1TCcv9CoNzwdg/4Bl9TqP8sg== X-Received: by 10.223.176.174 with SMTP id i43mr93050wra.77.1517864392858; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.137.2.19] (ip-78-102-97-226.net.upcbroadband.cz. [78.102.97.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w50sm6089306wrb.33.2018.02.05.12.59.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 12:59:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes To: Mark Dilger Cc: Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org References: <20180123200537.gfx5hxcp5k5hktpe@alvherre.pgsql> <821c4c1d-592e-8916-e323-04607b11777e@2ndquadrant.com> <104E8BB8-35FF-4AA8-9871-6AFF04E4CAF3@gmail.com> From: Tomas Vondra Message-ID: <0afde2fc-e160-004f-8fe2-c65302ac3760@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:59:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <104E8BB8-35FF-4AA8-9871-6AFF04E4CAF3@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 02/05/2018 09:27 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > >> BTW while working on the regression tests, I've noticed that brin.sql >> fails to test a couple of minmax opclasses (e.g. abstime/reltime). Is >> that intentional or is that something we should fix eventually? > > I believe abstime/reltime are deprecated. Perhaps nobody wanted to > bother adding test coverage for deprecated classes? There was another > thread that discussed removing these types. The consensus seemed to > be in favor of removing them, though I have not seen a patch for that yet. > Yeah, that's what I've been wondering about too. There's also this comment in nabstime.h: /* * Although time_t generally is a long int on 64 bit systems, these two * types must be 4 bytes, because that's what pg_type.h assumes. They * should be yanked (long) before 2038 and be replaced by timestamp and * interval. */ But then why adding BRIN opclasses at all? And if adding them, why not to test them? We all know how long deprecation takes, particularly for data types. For me the question is whether to bother with adding the multi-minmax opclasses, of course. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services