From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Indirect indexes
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <28768.1477091556@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161021230410.kyngu5dzssvi44wk@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20161021230410.kyngu5dzssvi44wk@alvherre.pgsql>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, I think that this is a really promising direction, but also that
>> you should try very hard to try to get out from under this 6-byte PK
>> limitation. That seems really ugly, and in practice it probably means
>> your PK is probably going to be limited to int4, which is kind of sad
>> since it leaves people using int8 or text PKs out in the cold.
> I think we could just add a new type, unsigned 6 byte int, specifically
> for this purpose.
I think that's a really bad idea, because after you've fixed this
hopefully-temporary limitation, we'll still be stuck carrying this
weird type forever. Besides which, doesn't the existing TID type
already serve the purpose?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Indirect indexes
In-Reply-To: <28768.1477091556@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