From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Generalize hash and ordering support in amapi |
Date: | 2025-03-08 08:45:07 |
Message-ID: | 5d98c343-4d8e-4c10-bbfe-7f122065fc18@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 07.03.25 19:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> I have committed fixes for these issues along the lines you suggested.
>
> Thanks. There is a typo in hashhandler:
>
> - amroutine->amcancrosscompare = true;
> + amroutine->amconsistentequality = true;
> + amroutine->amconsistentequality = false;
>
> The second line should be setting amconsistentordering = false.
>
> Also, may I suggest one more thing? I think the test in
> comparison_ops_are_compatible should be just
>
> - if (amroutine->amcanorder && amroutine->amconsistentordering)
> + if (amroutine->amconsistentordering)
>
> (and the comment for it needs adjustment too). To my mind,
> amconsistentordering is a static declaration that operators
> within one of the AM's opfamilies are expected to have this
> property. That could be true whether or not the AM is capable
> of returning tuples in order. So although these flags might
> commonly be set together, I think they are independent
> properties.
Agreed, done.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-03-08 09:56:55 | Re: pgsql: reindexdb: Add the index-level REINDEX with multiple jobs |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-03-08 08:39:15 | pgsql: Make amcanorder independent of amconsistentordering |