Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ipwGD-0003wY-5F for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:31:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ipwGB-0001Pi-32 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:31:39 +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_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ipwGA-0001Pb-QB for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:31:38 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ipwG8-0006q3-2x for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:31:38 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 00AFVUbI029243; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:31:31 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alexander Korotkov cc: Tomas Vondra , Nikita Glukhov , PostgreSQL Hackers , Julien Rouhaud , Thomas Munro , Marc Cousin Subject: Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible In-reply-to: References: <17590.1564685940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19189.1564687723@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19438.1565209940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200106152155.uuungi2p776p5lbk@development> Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Korotkov message dated "Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:31:52 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29241.1578670290.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:31:30 -0500 Message-ID: <29242.1578670290@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alexander Korotkov writes: > So, I think v10 is a version of patch, which can be committed after > some cleanup. And we can try doing better nulls handling in a separate > patch. The cfbot reports that this doesn't pass regression testing. I haven't looked into why not. regards, tom lane