On 02/13/2013 09:13 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
.
I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea
what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index.
It could easily turn out that we invent a plausible API that's not
actually of use because of requirements for locking. Whoever wants
that can do the legwork.
IIRC each of the new index types has required some changes to the
generic APIs, which makes sense.
Does that mean we can add support for fractal tree indexes(or some thing on
similar lines) in the regular way by changing the generic APIs?
IMO, we could design the fractal tree index and use it as the use case for
generic WAL record(I am kind of obsessed with the idea of seeing fractal
indexes being supported in Postgres).
If they are patented as Alexander says upthread, then surely the idea is
dead in the water.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
