Re: Fix comment in btree_gist--1.8--1.9.sql

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix comment in btree_gist--1.8--1.9.sql
Date: 2025-07-09 23:16:52
Message-ID: aG74ZATkXgPurCJB@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 01:52:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I considered putting the sortsupport functions first, since they have a lower support function
>> number, but I thought defining them in the same order as we've been doing was a tiny bit safer.
>> Maybe that is superstitious.
>
> Yeah, I'd be inclined to swap them. I dislike code that has no
> ordering principle other than feature development order.

Ordering them by number in the unified script makes more sense here.

> LGTM other than that nit. Michael, do you want to do the
> honors, or shall I?

Sure, I can look at that today.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2025-07-09 23:20:20 Re: gcc 15 "array subscript 0" warning at level -O3
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2025-07-09 22:55:08 Re: index prefetching