On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 16:59 +0400, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> > This can be solved by my proposal, but I just don't know how it would
> > apply to something like GIN, for instance. It could replace the unique
> Hmm, your proposal isn't applicable to GIN, because GIN stores a lot of keys
> for
> only one value to be indexed.
Right. I can't think of a good reason to constrain a GIN index, but I
think it is possible using this scheme.
> > being inserted by other concurrent transactions, and those values can
> > be variable in size. What other mechanism do we have to share those
> > variable-sized values among several backends?
> In theory, any indexed value in index (for GiST, after compression) should
> fit
> into page at least.
>
So are you saying we should dedicate one page multiplied by
max_connections in shared memory? It's possible to do it that way, but
we still have to check the heap for visibility information, at least.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
