Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+Tgmob==vi7MXZC9EhTGZ2YiuWkQuAGZm=H6M=9zPN2tp4s3A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: get rid of Pointer type, mostly
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 1:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I don't understand leaving it in place for GIN. I haven't tried removing it for GIN so I don't know how awkward that would be or for what reasons, but... > It's > not like GIN indexes are some hoary backwater that nobody pays > attention to. ...I almost feel like you're trolling with this comment. It is true that we maintain that code, and I see in the commit log that there are even some GIN-specific improvements in the recent past. But the average PostgreSQL hacker can probably go years and years without ever having to touch the GIN code. Hoary backwater might be overselling it, but it's far enough in that direction that confining the need to be aware of one specific PostgreSQL-ism just to GIN is not without value. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: