Tom Lane wrote:
> One objection: I think the GiST amproc numbers (GIST_CONSISTENT_PROC
> and friends) *are* part of the API and should be in the public header,
> even if they happen not to be used by any C code at the moment.
Ok, I've moved these back to gist.h
> GISTNStrategies seems inherently bogus, since there's no essential limit
> on the number of strategies in a gist index. I'd get rid of it.
> The "100" in pg_am.h is pretty nasty too, because it is on the one hand
> theoretically insufficient and on the other hand in practice way too
Yeah, I agree this is pretty ugly, but I'm not planning to fix it any
time soon, either...
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Mahmoud Taghizadeh||Date: 2005-05-17 05:10:52|
|Subject: Faarsi FAQ?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-05-17 02:36:14|
|Subject: Re: GiST header cleanup |