| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful? |
| Date: | 2006-12-18 08:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | 458654E8.2000500@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I propose that we should set pg_am.amstrategies to zero when the index
> AM doesn't have a fixed interpretation of strategy numbers. This would
> make it clearer that there's no intended upper bound. It would also
Agreed. BTW, that also plays around possibility of grouping operator classes -
since GIN/GiST hasn't fixed strategy numbers, they opclasses can not be unioned
into group without extra agreement.
> Comments? Can anyone think of anything that is likely to break?
> (I can only see one or two trivial code adjustments that would be
> needed.)
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2006-12-18 10:32:53 | Re: Operator class group proposal |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2006-12-18 08:31:35 | Re: unixware and --with-ldap |