From: | Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters |
Date: | 2018-03-02 16:12:58 |
Message-ID: | 2803786.3sFNWAn8Pn@x200m |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал:
> > 2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my
> > prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for
> > intarray. May be you should do the same. (Use my example it will be more
> > easy then do it from scratch). It will give more understanding of how
> > this improvement can be used.
>
> Hey, look on patches, there are many examples !
Oups...Sorry. I've looked at the patch from commitfest
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1559/ and it have shown only the first
file. And When I read the letter I did not pay attention to attachments at
all. So I was sure there is only one there.
Yes. Now I see seven examples. But I think seven it is too many.
For each case a reviewer should make consideration if this parameter worth
moving to opclass options, or fixed definition in the C code is quite ok.
Doing it for whole bunch, may make it messy. I think, it would be good to
commit an implementation of opclass options, with a good example of usage. And
then commit patches for all cases where these options can be used.
But since it is now "Rejected with feedback", let's wait till autumn.
--
Do code for fun.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-02 16:17:46 | Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code |
Previous Message | Alexander Kuzmenkov | 2018-03-02 16:12:25 | Re: Rangejoin rebased |