On 2016-10-31 09:28:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Well, that'll also make the feature not particularly useful :(. My > > suspicion is that the way to suceed here isn't to rely more on testing > > as part of the scan, but create a more general fastpath for qual > > evaluation, which atm is a *LOT* more heavyweight than what > > HeapKeyTest() does. But maybe I'm biased since I'm working on the > > latter... > > I think you might be right, but I'm not very clear on what the > timeline for your work is.
Me neither. But I think if we can stomach Dilip's approach of using a slot in heapam, then I think my concerns are addressed, and this is probably going go to be a win regardless of faster expression evaluation and/or batching. > It would be easier to say, sure, let's put > this on hold if we knew that in a month or two we could come back and > retest after you've made some progress. But I don't know whether > we're talking about months or years. I sure hope it's months. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers