Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength
Date: 2020-02-27 23:32:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 12:33:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see your point that "check" suggests a read-only operation, but
>> I'm not sure about a better verb. I thought of "amvalidatemembers",
>> but that's not really much better than "check" is it?

> I don't :-(

Still haven't got a better naming idea, but in the meantime here's
a rebase to fix a conflict with 612a1ab76.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
am-check-members-callback-4.patch text/x-diff 45.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-02-28 00:09:42 Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-02-27 23:25:13 Re: ALTER INDEX fails on partitioned index