On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:39:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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 > +1 for applying it to 8.4 as well.
Cheers, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
