Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@siriusit.co.uk> writes:
> So in conclusion, I think that patch looks good and that the extra time
> I was seeing was due to RECHECK being applied to the && operator, and
> not the time being spent within the index scan itself.
Thanks, I appreciate the followup.
I plan to go ahead and apply the patch to HEAD --- it doesn't conflict
with Heikki's pending patch AFAICS, and no one has suggested an
alternative that seems likely to get implemented soon.
I am a bit tempted to apply it to 8.4 as well; otherwise the PostGIS
people are likely to start cluttering their code with this
add-a-dummy-function workaround, which would be unproductive in the long
run. Comments?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
