Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
От | Anastasia Lubennikova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ed918743-bf32-b8af-0620-e07c1d81ce2f@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 19.02.2020 22:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:14 AM Anastasia Lubennikova > <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> Thank you for this work. I've looked through the patches and they seem >> to be ready for commit. >> I haven't yet read recent documentation and readme changes, so maybe >> I'll send some more feedback tomorrow. The only thing I found is a typo in the comment + int nhtids; /* Number of heap TIDs in nhtids array */ s/nhtids/htids I don't think this patch really needs more nitpicking ) > >> In my opinion, this message is too specific for default behavior. It >> exposes internal details without explanation and may look to user like >> something went wrong. > You're probably right about that. I just wish that there was some way > of showing the same information that was discoverable, and didn't > require the use of pageinspect. If I make it a DEBUG1 message, then it > cannot really be documented. User can discover this with a complex query to pg_index and pg_opclass. To simplify this, we can probably wrap this into function or some field in pg_indexes. Anyway, I would wait for feedback from pre-release testers.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: