Glen Parker escribió: > That's two people now who have called the idea "silly" without even a > hint of a supporting argument. Why would it be "silly" to improve the > performance of a highly valuable tool set without compromising its > utility? Am I missing something here? That's certainly possible, but > the idea didn't just hatch last night; I've put enough thought into this > to have reason to believe it's more than just "silly". FWIW I don't think this idea is silly at all. It's so not-silly, in fact, that we already have some access methods that do this if an index cannot be recovered (I think at least GiST does it). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
