pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:03:24 -0500
Message-ID: <28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190114223409.3tcvejfhlvbucrv5@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180106225942.GT2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<40fd1ef1-6227-69d1-9a24-edfef875e006@postgrespro.ru>
	<20180301194824.46ivyszju2ivhlh5@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CA+TgmoZzdNsTFmmt+wTtCn0hQ+1F=OEG6ptbSRbi6prqVa97Cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180511033227.vvgm3yi5xngro2hp@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CANP8+jKD+u-oW-whEdx1+k_NjAwHU4PvNse-qLp-o_d2zSXW7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180511143737.rvogcsxdksrhyyj5@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CANP8+jLgdS-_ka5bhyG_=f5wGYVY-bQy3YD7rJY=TDnpA1snmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+Tgmob_qk-w38Mbp5wCCGH9G8AFpmB0K0aTLujJqHNbBpBNUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<25975.1541618754@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190114223409.3tcvejfhlvbucrv5@alap3.anarazel.de>

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-11-07 14:25:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, it seems likely to me that large parts of this patch need to
>> be pulled out, rewritten, and then put back in different places than
>> they are today.  I'm not sure if a complete revert is the best next
>> step, or if we can make progress without that.

> We've not really made progress on this. I continue to think that we
> ought to revert this feature, and then work to re-merge it an
> architecturally correct way afterwards.  Other opinions?

Given the lack of progress, I'd agree with a revert.  It's probably
already going to be a bit painful to undo due to subsequent changes,
so we shouldn't wait too much longer.

Do we want to revert entirely, or leave the "recheck_on_update" option
present but nonfunctional?

			regards, tom lane




view thread (99+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, sfrost@snowman.net, michael.paquier@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, myon@debian.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
  In-Reply-To: <28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox