Quick Links

Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength

From:	Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To:	Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc:	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:	2020-03-31 20:45:50
Message-ID:	338.1585687550@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views:	Raw Message \| Whole Thread \| Download mbox \| Resend email
Thread:
Lists:	pgsql-hackers

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

I see from the cfbot that this needs another rebase, so here 'tis.
No changes in the patch itself.

regards, tom lane

Attachment	Content-Type	Size
am-check-members-callback-5.patch	text/x-diff	45.4 KB

In response to

Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength at 2020-02-27 23:32:17 from Tom Lane

Responses

Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength at 2020-07-14 20:22:55 from Anastasia Lubennikova

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

	From	Date	Subject
Next Message	Tom Lane	2020-03-31 20:48:30	Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Previous Message	Bruce Momjian	2020-03-31 20:32:07	Re: Small docs bugfix: make it clear what can be used in UPDATE FROM and DELETE USING