Peter Geoghegan-3 wrote > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Robert Haas <
> robertmhaas@ > > wrote: >>> I assume that the problem here is larger than just failure to adhere to >>> C89 comment style. Was this patch really ready to commit? I'm not very >>> happy that such a large patch went from "Needs review" to "Committed" in >>> the blink of an eye on the very last commitfest day ... and artifacts >>> like >>> this aren't doing anything to increase my confidence in it. It was just missed comment after the fix between patch revisions. > I really wish I could have done more to help with this, but I didn't > do enough soon enough. Regrettably, I think that the patch just isn't > ready. For example, the way that expression indexes just aren't > handled is a cause for concern, as is the general way in which high > keys are modified during index builds. Interactions with logical > decoding are also a concern; there could be significant issues there, > but that analysis just didn't happen. I had significant > misunderstandings about the patch as recently as this week. > > This should be reverted. The answer to the question about expressions is quite simple - they are not supported by index-only scan, so having them in covering index now is just wasting of disc space. It's sad to hear that patch should be reverted. But, of course, I can't argue with community's decision. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/pgsql-CREATE-INDEX-INCLUDING-column-tp5897653p5897721.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - committers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
