Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength

From: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2020-07-14 20:22:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 31.03.2020 23:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> I 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?

I've looked through the patch and noticed this comment:

+            default:
+                /* Probably we should throw error here */
+                break;

I suggest adding an ERROR or maybe Assert, so that future developers
forget about setting dependencies. Other than that, the patch looks good
to me.

Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional:
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2020-07-14 21:09:30 Re: SQL/JSON: functions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-07-14 20:08:11 Re: Multi-byte character case-folding