Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 21:17:25 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes
Message-ID: <20210303001725.GA1766@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4e92be8a-446b-1bab-d43d-8bd55e62e96e@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Mar-03, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> That's kinda my point - I agree the size of the patch is not the primary
> concern, but it makes the minmax/inclusion code a bit more complicated
> (because they now have to loop over the keys), with very little benefit
> (there might be some speedup, but IMO it's rather negligible).

Yeah, OK.

> Alternatively we could simply remove the code supporting the old API
> with "consistent" functions without the additional parameter. But the
> idea was to seamlessly support existing opclasses / not breaking them
> unnecessarily (I know we don't guarantee that in major upgrades, but as
> they may not benefit from this, why break them?). It'd simplify the code
> in brin.c a little bit, but the opclasses a bit more complex.

Well, I doubt any opclass-support functions exist outside of core.
Or am I just outdated and we do know of some?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile
"Escucha y olvidarás; ve y recordarás; haz y entenderás" (Confucio)