On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 1/8/16 9:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I would agree except for the observation on toast indexes.  I think
>>>> that's an important enough use case that perhaps we should have both.
>>> The exclusion of toast indexes is something we can remove also, I have
>>> recently discovered. When we access toast data we ignore MVCC, but we
>>> still
>>> have the toast pointer and chunkid to use for rechecking our scan
>>> results.
>>> So a later patch will add some rechecks.
>> Ah, interesting, glad to hear.  I take it you're pushing your patch
>> soon, then?
> ISTM that this patch should be "returned with feedback" or "rejected" based
> on the thread.  I'm marking it "waiting for author" for the time being.

I think that we are still waiting for some input from Simon here...
Simon, are you going to finish wrapping up your other patch?

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to