Re: WIP: Rework access method interface

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2015-09-18 14:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> >> After, further personal discussion with Teodor, we decided that
> >> amvalidate is out of scope for this patch.
> >> It's not evident what should we validate in amvalidate and which way. I
> >> think if we need amvalidate it should be subject of separate patch.
>
> > But why is it not evident? We do the validations in regression tests,
> > even if we just copy those then it's enough for a start.
>
> I think the main reason this question is in-scope for this patch is
> precisely the problem of what do we do about the regression tests.
>
> I'm not in favor of exposing some SQL-level functions whose sole purpose
> is to support those regression test queries, because while those queries
> are very useful for detecting errors in handmade opclasses, they're hacks,
> and always have been. They don't work well (or at all, really) for
> anything more than btree/hash cases. It'd be better to expose amvalidate
> functions, even if we don't yet have full infrastructure for them.
>

I'm OK about continuing work on amvalidate if we can build consuensus on
its design.
Could you give some feedback on amvalidate version of patch please?
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfds8ZyWenz9vW6tE5RZXboL1vU_wSW181vEq+mU+v1dsiw@mail.gmail.com

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company