13.01.2016 04:47, David Rowley :
On 13 January 2016 at 06:47, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com <mailto:jeff.ja...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Why is omit_opclass a separate patch?  If the included columns now
    never participate in the index ordering, shouldn't it be an inherent
    property of the main patch that you can "cover" things without btree

I don't personally think the covering_unique_4.0.patch is that close to being too big to review, I think things would make more sense of the omit_opclass_4.0.patch was included together with this.

I agree that these patches should be merged. It'll be fixed it the next updates. I kept them separate only for historical reasons, it was more convenient for me to debug them. Furthermore, I wanted to show some performance degradation caused by "omit_opclass" and give a way to reproduce it performing test with and whithot the patch.

Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Reply via email to