| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
| Date: | 2015-09-07 22:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvjr=2HXnMnW6Q3StD7E7TQzRnk=vRz+htXE7rF9NTo3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2015-09-07 20:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
>>
>> However I don't like the naming differences between validate_opclass
>> and amvalidate. If you expect that the current amvalidate will only
>> be used for opclass validation then it should be renamed accordingly.
>>
>>
>> I'm not yet sure if we need separate validation of opfamilies.
>>
>>
> Well either the amvalidate or the validate_opclass should be renamed IMHO,
> depending on which way the checking goes (one interface for everything with
> generic name or multiple interfaces for multiple validations).
Yes, I agree with you about naming.
I'm not sure about separate validation of opfamilies independent of its
naming. I'd like to get any arguments/advises about it.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2015-09-07 22:02:54 | Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2015-09-07 21:53:46 | Re: One question about security label command |