Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine

From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>
To: Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Date: 2023-12-08 12:49:31
Message-ID: 5892085.MhkbZ0Pkbq@thinkpad-pgpro
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

В письме от пятница, 8 декабря 2023 г. 08:59:41 MSK пользователь Michael
Paquier написал:

> > I've rebased patch, so it could be add to commitfest again.
>
> This is a 270kB patch with quite a few changes, and a lot of code
>
> moved around:
> > 47 files changed, 2592 insertions(+), 2326 deletions(-)
>
> Could it be possible to split that into more successive steps to ease
> its review?

Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch
now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly
unchanged.

This will be total mess with two different options mechanisms working in the
same time, but this might be much more easy to review. When we are done with
the first step, we can change the rest.
If this will help to finally include patch into postgres, I can do it. Will
that help you to review?

--
Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj
Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional
Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-12-08 12:55:28 Re: GUC names in messages
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2023-12-08 12:44:12 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum