On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes. I think >>>> that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both. >>> >>> The exclusion of toast indexes is something we can remove also, I have >>> recently discovered. When we access toast data we ignore MVCC, but we >>> still >>> have the toast pointer and chunkid to use for rechecking our scan >>> results. >>> So a later patch will add some rechecks. >> >> Ah, interesting, glad to hear. I take it you're pushing your patch >> soon, then? > > ISTM that this patch should be "returned with feedback" or "rejected" based > on the thread. I'm marking it "waiting for author" for the time being.
I think that we are still waiting for some input from Simon here... Simon, are you going to finish wrapping up your other patch?
Yes, I have done the research, so think patch should be rejected now.
Thanks to everyone for their input. It's good to have alternate approaches.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services