Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

08.04.2016 15:45, Anastasia Lubennikova:
> 08.04.2016 15:06, Teodor Sigaev:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write
>>>> assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going
>>>> *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an
>>>> assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just
>>>> a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all.
>>>
>>> You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to
>>> always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this,
>>> IMV.
>>>
>> Some notices:
>> - index_truncate_tuple(Relation idxrel, IndexTuple olditup, int
>> indnatts,
>> int indnkeyatts)
>> Why we need indnatts/indnkeyatts? They are presented in idxrel struct
>> already
>> - follow code where index_truncate_tuple() is called, it should never
>> called in
>> case where indnatts == indnkeyatts. So, indnkeyatts should be
>> strictly less
>> than indnatts, pls, change assertion. If they are equal the this
>> function
>> becomes complicated variant of CopyIndexTuple()
>
> Good point. These attributes seem to be there since previous versions
> of the function.
> But now they are definitely unnecessary. Updated patch is attached

One more improvement - note about expressions into documentation.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company