From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)stack(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Q about InsertIndexResult |
Date: | 2003-02-12 17:01:01 |
Message-ID: | 3E4A7DCD.3000504@stack.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I can't offhand see a good reason to return the index tuple's tid.
One reason why existing interface is not good:
Who say, that for one heap tuple should exists only one index tuple?
For example, Oleg and Vadim Mikheev had discussian pair years ago about
indexing arrays by B-tree: for each heap tuple stores one index tuple per
element of array.
> There isn't any legitimate reason for anything outside the index AM
> to be doing anything directly with the index tuple.
> I dunno if it's worth the trouble to change it just to save one palloc
> per insert, though. If we ever decided that there was some other piece
> of information that the index AM should return, we'd have to change
> right back to returning a struct...
Agreed.
--
Teodor Sigaev
teodor(at)stack(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-02-12 17:01:48 | Re: Options for growth |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 16:48:57 | Re: Changing the default configuration |