| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collation versioning |
| Date: | 2020-07-08 06:26:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20200708062620.GD18003@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:12:51PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I still wish I had a better idea than this:
>
> +/*
> + * Returns whether the given index access method depend on a stable collation
> + * order.
> + */
> +static bool
> +index_depends_stable_coll_order(Oid amoid)
> +{
> + return (amoid != HASH_AM_OID &&
> + strcmp(get_am_name(amoid), "bloom") != 0);
> +}
>
> I'm doing some more testing and looking for weird cases... More soon.
Wouldn't the normal way to track that a new field in IndexAmRoutine?
What you have here is not extensible.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | kato-sho@fujitsu.com | 2020-07-08 06:35:50 | RE: Performing partition pruning using row value |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-07-08 06:22:36 | Re: Modifying data type of slot_keep_segs from XLogRecPtr to XLogSegNo |