| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexscan API cleanup proposal |
| Date: | 2002-05-19 22:43:03 |
| Message-ID: | 3CE82A77.4090501@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> where "kill the index entry" involves informing the index AM that it can
> somehow mark the index entry uninteresting and not to be returned at all
> during future indexscans. (For performance reasons this'll probably get
> merged into the next "get next index tuple" operation, but that remains
> to be designed in detail.)
>
> Comments?
>
Is this a step toward being able to VACUUM indexes?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-19 22:52:29 | Re: Indexscan API cleanup proposal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-19 22:39:49 | Re: Exposed function to find table in schema search list? |