| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch to improve amvalidate functions |
| Date: | 2016-01-21 02:27:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20160121022756.GA384179@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm posting this now just in case anyone has some comments, or quibbles
> about the overall intent. In particular, if anyone has an idea for a more
> thorough missing-objects check on BRIN opfamilies, I would like to hear
> it. The fact that there are two kinds of opfamilies with rather different
> internal consistency requirements is a real pain there, and the check
> rules I have here are definitely the result of some trial and error.
Without reading your code: maybe each opfamily framework could itself
provide a validator function as a separate support procedure (currently
brin_minmax_validate and brin_inclusion_validate); so the generic BRIN
amvalidate verifies the basic elements of the opfamily, then hands off
to the opfamily-framework-specific validator function for additional
checking.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-01-21 02:32:25 | Re: COPY (... tab completion |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-01-21 02:14:55 | Re: Batch update of indexes |