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 opclasses?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
