Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GiST header cleanup

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GiST header cleanup
Date: 2005-05-17 03:37:23
Message-ID: 428966F3.2000208@samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Patch applied.

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.

Done.

> 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
> much.

Yeah, I agree this is pretty ugly, but I'm not planning to fix it any 
time soon, either...

-Neil

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Mahmoud TaghizadehDate: 2005-05-17 05:10:52
Subject: Faarsi FAQ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-05-17 02:36:14
Subject: Re: GiST header cleanup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group