From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Dissociate btequalimage() from interval_ops, ending its deduplic |
Date: | 2023-10-15 00:03:58 |
Message-ID: | 20231015000358.2d@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 07:45:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > ... This fix makes interval_ops simply omit the support function,
> > like numeric_ops does. Back-pack to v13, where btequalimage() first
> > appeared. In back branches, for the benefit of old catalog content,
> > btequalimage() code will return false for type "interval". Going
> > forward, back-branch initdb will include the catalog change.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure that that last is a good idea. The upshot of this
> (because of the opr_sanity.out change) is that "make installcheck"
> will fail against existing back-branch installations. That seems
> more likely to cause problems/confusion than the alternative of just
> depending on the code change.
I'm way more worried about amcheck failing on all those indexes than I am
about someone who needs to tweak their installcheck rig. I accepted the
former as the least-bad option, but if any area needs more thought, I feel
that's the area.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-15 00:27:58 | Re: pgsql: Dissociate btequalimage() from interval_ops, ending its deduplic |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-14 23:45:21 | Re: pgsql: Dissociate btequalimage() from interval_ops, ending its deduplic |