Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

On 14 January 2016 at 08:24, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I will try to review the omit_opclass_4.0.patch soon.

Hi, as promised, here's my review of the omit_opclass_4.0.patch patch.

Thank you again. All mentioned points are fixed and patches are merged.
I hope it's all right now. Please check comments one more time. I rather doubt that I wrote everything correctly.

Also this makes me think that the name ii_KeyAttrNumbers is now out-of-date, as it contains

the including columns too by the looks of it. Maybe it just needs to drop the "Key" and become

"ii_AttrNumbers". It would be interesting to hear what others think of that.

I'm also wondering if indexkeys is still a good name for the IndexOptInfo struct member. 

Including columns are not really keys, but I feel renaming that might cause a fair bit of code churn, so I'd be interested to hear what other's have to say.

I agree that KeyAttrNumbers and indexkeys are a bit confusing names, but I'd like to keep them at least in this patch.
It's may be worth doing "index structures refactoring" as a separate patch.

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company