Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm a bit dubious about this, mainly because you did not likewise
>> const-ify the other input arguments; it seems confusing to do a partial
>> const-ification.
> Well, "partial const-ification" is the rule rather than the exception in
Tom Lane wrote:
I think you can assume that noplace else in the backend will invoke the
sk_func, period.
Great, thanks for the info.
- mark the array that indicates NULLs that is passed to
index_formtuple() as 'const', and fix the resulting fallout
I'm a bit dubious about this, mainly because you d
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What are you going to base your concurrency work on? I wonder because I
skimmed through Marcel Kornacker's theses, and for example it mentioned
use of predicate locking (among other interesting things). Do you have
any ideas yet on how to handle that?
I've read a paper[1] on
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:41:00PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> Comments welcome. I would like to apply this to 8.1 at some point after
> we branch for 8.0. I thought I would post this patch to get some
> feedback before starting on further GiST work (speculatively, adding
> support for concurrency
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is a patch that makes some cleanups and improvements to GiST,
> as well as a few semi-related cleanups. Changes:
> ...
> QUESTION: given a ScanKey for an index scan, GiST overwrites the
> ScanKey's sk_func to point to the user-defined Consistent m
Attached is a patch that makes some cleanups and improvements to GiST,
as well as a few semi-related cleanups. Changes:
- previously, GiST did not make any use of the backend's memory context
infrastructure. This made implementing indexes using GiST unnecessarily
difficult and fragile: if your imp
