From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength |
Date: | 2020-02-27 23:32:17 |
Message-ID: | 25129.1582846337@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 12:33:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see your point that "check" suggests a read-only operation, but
>> I'm not sure about a better verb. I thought of "amvalidatemembers",
>> but that's not really much better than "check" is it?
> I don't :-(
Still haven't got a better naming idea, but in the meantime here's
a rebase to fix a conflict with 612a1ab76.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
am-check-members-callback-4.patch | text/x-diff | 45.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-02-28 00:09:42 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-02-27 23:25:13 | Re: ALTER INDEX fails on partitioned index |