From: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replace magic numbers with strategy numbers for B-tree indexes |
Date: | 2025-09-01 14:04:04 |
Message-ID: | CAJDiXgh9QuLmkGQKA7sh-=4Aqp9_Opmc74X-Kn8BXcxwQsfX9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 3:27 PM Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Please correct if I'm wrong, but it seems Peter had another approach in mind -
> magic numbers in separate macros could be easily replaced with enums and
> validation functions, which would make code more readable and less 'magical'.
> Please check the POC patch in attach.
> I've made this just for BT strategies macros and touched only 2 source files
> to make a correct but simple example.
>
I don't think that we can just create different enums for each index strategies.
We have (for example) ScanKey functionality, which can work with different
indexes (and such a functions has a uint16 argument for strategy number).
Or are you talking about a single huge enum for all index types? I don't
mind trying to do something like this, but I'm not sure how
"beautiful" it will be.
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacques Combrink | 2025-09-01 14:06:58 | Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2025-09-01 13:35:37 | Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files |