| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters |
| Date: | 2019-12-01 02:30:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20191201023048.GT2355@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not
> the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required
> or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting
> at 11 or so. The 0 breaks this, because it's optional but it contradicts
> the procnum rule. Also, what happens if we need to add another optional
> amproc defined for all AMs? Surely we won't use -1.
>
> IMHO we should keep AM-specific procnum and pass it somehow to the AM
> machinery.
The latest review has not been addressed, and this was 7 weeks ago.
So I am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-01 02:32:16 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-01 02:28:34 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |