Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDIUF-0003fD-GM for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDIUE-0000Kq-Ru for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:14 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDIUD-0000KU-Gy for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WDIUB-0006EH-1E for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:13 +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 s1BIsmv1025946; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:54:48 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Andres Freund , Robert Haas , Jim Nasby , Alvaro Herrera , Peter Geoghegan , Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans In-reply-to: <20140211184146.GG2289@momjian.us> References: <20130917231050.GD29545@awork2.anarazel.de> <20140201032207.GD31141@momjian.us> <20140211155607.GB2289@momjian.us> <20140211171213.GE2289@momjian.us> <20140211175410.GF31598@awork2.anarazel.de> <20140211182319.GF2289@momjian.us> <20140211183103.GJ15246@awork2.anarazel.de> <20140211184146.GG2289@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:41:46 -0500" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:54:48 -0500 Message-ID: <25945.1392144888@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:03PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> I am not saying it shouldn't be improved, I just don't see the point of >> bringing it up while everyone is busy with the last CF and claiming it >> is unusable and that stating that it is surprisising that nobody really >> cares. > Well, I brought it up in September too. My point was not that it is a > new issue but that it has been such an ignored issue for two years. I > am not asking for a fix, but right now we don't even have a plan on how > to improve this. Indeed, and considering that we're all busy with the CF, I think it's quite unreasonable of you to expect that we'll drop everything else to think about this problem right now. The reason it's like it is is that it's not easy to see how to make it better; so even if we did drop everything else, it's not clear to me that any plan would emerge anytime soon. 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