On 13 January 2016 at 06:47, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is omit_opclass a separate patch? If the included columns now > never participate in the index ordering, shouldn't it be an inherent > property of the main patch that you can "cover" things without btree > opclasses? > > I also wondered this. We can't have covering indexes without fixing the problem with the following arrays: info->indexkeys = (int *) palloc(sizeof(int) * ncolumns); info->indexcollations = (Oid *) palloc(sizeof(Oid) * ncolumns); info->opfamily = (Oid *) palloc(sizeof(Oid) * ncolumns); These need to be sized according to the number of key columns, not the total number of columns. Of course, the TODO item in the patch states this too. I don't personally think the covering_unique_4.0.patch is that close to being too big to review, I think things would make more sense of the omit_opclass_4.0.patch was included together with this. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
