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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:22:49 -0500
Message-ID: <56F484D9.1060007@BlueTreble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdvtDTYh7ovViifVaLN9Zpw1qd5ZFen2w9G=NTxJNN5sPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55E4051B.7020209@postgrespro.ru>
	<56AA2081.1080001@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAA-aLv68Ptrnk2HpHSg9wYR0c+D2AyTB+XrS671brxqQz3dH3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AA3E06.8040006@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAA-aLv5aQezrfh2iJD97R1sQ6nqMsR2QZ_YAzNfAOkkMgO8CFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AB6D30.2040900@postgrespro.ru>
	<20160129184733.2ca9026a@fujitsu>
	<CAA-aLv7pmO41G78jfLsftsCvkXZw6dL8HZoCX9ute6nQxJv2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AB9866.6050207@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAM3SWZQ3_PLQCH4w7uQ8q_f2t4HEseKTr2n0rQ5pxA18OeRTJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<56C5FCE1.1090509@postgrespro.ru>
	<56C5FF80.5050905@postgrespro.ru>
	<56E6B64E.6000101@pgmasters.net>
	<56E84834.2070003@postgrespro.ru>
	<56EC38A9.9030303@postgrespro.ru>
	<CA+TgmoaT4-YM-aMWrE8NOiV10UEnZaZ19RaPHdAbweWYJOra2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPpHfdvtDTYh7ovViifVaLN9Zpw1qd5ZFen2w9G=NTxJNN5sPA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 3/24/16 10:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> 1) It's a great feature many users dream about.

Doesn't matter if it starts eating their data...

> 2) Patch is not very big.
> 3) Patch doesn't introduce significant infrastructural changes.  It just
> change some well-isolated placed.

It doesn't really matter how big the patch is, it's a question of "What 
did the patch fail to consider?". With something as complicated as the 
btree code, there's ample opportunities for missing things. (And FWIW, 
I'd argue that a 51kB patch is certainly not small, and a patch that is 
doing things in critical sections isn't terribly isolated).

I do think this will be a great addition, but it's just too late to be 
adding this to 9.6.

(BTW, I'm getting bounces from a.lebedev@postgrespro.ru, as well as 
postmaster@. I emailed info@postgrespro.ru about this but never heard back.)
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com


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



view thread (145+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <56F484D9.1060007@BlueTreble.com>
Permalink:  ../56F484D9.1060007@BlueTreble.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/56F484D9.1060007@BlueTreble.com

 · 

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: Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru, robertmhaas@gmail.com, a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru, david@pgmasters.net
  Subject: Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
  In-Reply-To: <56F484D9.1060007@BlueTreble.com>

* 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