Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength
Date: 2020-08-01 21:17:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> On 31.03.2020 23:45, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Still haven't got a better naming idea, but in the meantime here's
>> a rebase to fix a conflict with 612a1ab76.

> Maybe "amadjustmembers" will work?

Not having any better idea, I adopted that one.

> I've looked through the patch and noticed this comment:
> +                /* Probably we should throw error here */

> I suggest adding an ERROR or maybe Assert, so that future developers
> wouldn't
> forget about setting dependencies. Other than that, the patch looks good
> to me.

I'd figured that adding error checks could be left for a second pass,
but there's no strong reason not to insert these particular checks
now ... and indeed, doing so showed me that the patch hadn't been
updated to cover the recent addition of opclass options procs :-(.
So I fixed that and pushed it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-08-01 21:22:14 Re: [PATCH] Btree BackwardScan race condition on Standby during VACUUM
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-08-01 20:42:32 Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%