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

From: Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix comment in btree_gist--1.8--1.9.sql
Date: 2025-07-10 01:21:05
Message-ID: b4fdebd8-8feb-4624-bd18-23b11d2d7dd6@illuminatedcomputing.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/9/25 16:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.

Here is a patch with the new order.

Yours,

--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Collapse-last-two-releases-of-btree_gist-into-1.8.patch text/x-patch 15.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo Nagata 2025-07-10 01:30:41 Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2025-07-10 01:18:24 Re: Add pg_get_injection_points() for information of injection points