On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:15 PM Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 3:57 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
> <me@komzpa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure it is usefull in release notes since it is more about API, and not
> >> > user-facing change. Just in case.
> >> > GiST opclasses now can omit compress and decompress functions. If compress
> >> > function is omited, IndexOnlyScan is enabled for opclass without any extra
> >> > change.
> >> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/
> >> > d3a4f89d8a3e500bd7c0b7a8a8a5ce1b47859128
> >>
> >> Uh, we do have this for SP-GiST:
> >>
> >> Allow SP-GiST indexes to optionally use compression (Teodor Sigaev,
> >> Heikki Linnakangas, Alexander Korotkov, Nikita Glukhov)
> >>
> >> I am unclear how far downt the API stack I should go in documenting
> >> changes like this.
> >
> >
> > It is also a bit misleading - the idea in that change is that now index representation can be a lossy version of
actualdata type (a box instead of polygon as a referende, so a changelog entry can tell "Allow SP-GiST index creation
forpolygon datatype."). There is no "decompression" for such thing. "compression" sounds like gzip for me in
user-facingcontext.
>
> +1 that current wording looks confusing. But I think we need to
> highlight that we have general SP-GiST improvement, not just support
> for particular datatype. So, I propose following wording: "Allow
> SP-GiST to use lossy representation of leaf keys, and add SP-GiST
> support for polygon type using that".
Oh, I missed that we have separate release notes entry for polygons
indexing. Then second part of sentence isn't needed, it should be
just "Allow SP-GiST to use lossy representation of leaf keys". If no
objections, I'm going to commit that altogether with fixes by
Liudmila.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company