Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> WFM. I have all the information I need to produce the next revision now.
>
> I might as well post this one first. I'll have 0002 for you in a short while.

Attached is 0002 -- the amcheck enhancement itself. As requested by
Andres, this adds a new overloaded set of functions, rather than
dropping and recreating functions to change their signature.

I'm pretty sure that avoiding issues with dependencies by using this
approach is unprecedented, so I had to use my own judgement on how to
deal with a couple of things. I decided not to create a new C symbol
for the new function versions, preferring to leave it to the existing
PG_NARGS() tests. I guess this was probably what you intended I should
do, based on your "Given the PG_NARGS() checks..." remark. I also
chose to not document the single argument functions in the docs. I
suppose that we should consider these to be implementation details of
a work-around for dependency breakage, something that doesn't need to
be documented. That's a bit like how we don't document functions
within certain extensions that are designed just to get called within
a view definition. I don't feel strongly about it, though.

No other changes to report. I did mention that this would have a few
small changes yesterday; no need to repeat the details now.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan