> On 18 June 2018 at 19:31, Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> > wrote: >> >> A couple of questions to begin with. >> >> Should the patch continue to "piggy-back" on T_IndexOnlyScan, or should >> a new node (T_IndexSkipScan) be created ? If latter, then there likely >> will be functionality that needs to be refactored into shared code >> between the nodes. > > Is skip scan only possible for index-only scan? I guess, that no. We > could also make plain index scan to behave like a skip scan. And it > should be useful for accelerating DISTINCT ON clause. Thus, we might > have 4 kinds of index scan: IndexScan, IndexOnlyScan, IndexSkipScan, > IndexOnlySkipScan. So, I don't think I like index scan nodes to > multiply this way, and it would be probably better to keep number > nodes smaller. But I don't insist on that, and I would like to hear > other opinions too.
In one of patches I'm working on I had similar situation, when I wanted to split one node into two similar nodes (before I just extended it) and logically it made perfect sense. But it turned out to be quite useless and the advantage I've got wasn't worth it - and just to mention, those nodes had more differences than in this patch. So I agree that probably it would be better to keep using IndexOnlyScan. > On 19 June 2018 at 03:40, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:06:59AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> Assuming this, should we have possibility to register patch to >> September CF from now? > > There cannot be two commit fests marked as open at the same time as > Magnus mentions here: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cabuevex1k+axzcv2t3weyf5ulg72ybksch_huhfnzq+-kso...@mail.gmail.com > > In this case, could you wait that the next CF is marked as in progress and > that the one of September is opened? Yep, since the next CF will start shortly that's the easiest thing to do.
