Horton

Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-12-01T02:30:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not
> the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required
> or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting
> at 11 or so. The 0 breaks this, because it's optional but it contradicts
> the procnum rule. Also, what happens if we need to add another optional
> amproc defined for all AMs? Surely we won't use -1.
> 
> IMHO we should keep AM-specific procnum and pass it somehow to the AM
> machinery.

The latest review has not been addressed, and this was 7 weeks ago.
So I am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Documentation corrections for opclass parameters

  2. Implement operator class parameters