Subject: Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
References: <56EA8A71.8060107@dunslane.net> <56EACB8C.1040406@dunslane.net>
 <CA+TgmoZ8eZQSo539y0i9LKS7MeiK9X8HabgEYVmdi0Kj-6QM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Message-ID: <56EC13AB.8030407@dunslane.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:41:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZ8eZQSo539y0i9LKS7MeiK9X8HabgEYVmdi0Kj-6QM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 03/18/2016 09:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> On 03/17/2016 06:44 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Here is a patch to add enum support to btree_gin and btree_gist. I didn't
>>> include distance operations, as I didn't think it terribly important, and
>>> there isn't a simple way to compute it sanely and efficiently, so no KNN
>>> support.
>> This time including the data file for the gist regression tests.
> Are you intending this as a 9.7 submission?  Because it's pretty late for 9.6.
>


I guess so. I would certainly find it hard to argue that it should be in 
9.6 unless there is a consensus on it.

cheers

andrew


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers