Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> A bigger issue is whether this is worth applying when nobody seems to be > >> working on either of the main uses for it (bitmap indexes and GIT > >> indexes). There seemed to be some possible marginal use for it in GIST > >> indexes, but I'm not convinced that's a sufficient reason to complicate > >> the APIs. > > > It has some merit on its own. > > Yeah, and Teodor's point about cleaning up the @@@ hack pretty much > seals the deal for me. > > Unless anyone has objections, I will review and apply Heikki's patch > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-03/msg00163.php > which covers both the amgetmulti return-a-bitmap change and the > candidate-matches change. (Heiiki, you don't have a later version > of that do you?) > > The remaining topics associated with index AMs are closed for this > commit fest, unless anyone has specific questions they want discussed > right now...
OK, do you want the items moved to the next commit-fest, discarded, or made into TODOs? And which ones? Or do you want to do it? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
