| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index AM API cleanup |
| Date: | 2024-10-14 14:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | 9cf3adc9-40f4-40a0-a4bd-ff4c2c91631f@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.09.24 11:09, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 24, 2024, at 10:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> Next, I have reviewed patches
>>
>> v17-0010-Track-sort-direction-in-SortGroupClause.patch
>> v17-0011-Track-scan-reversals-in-MergeJoin.patch
>>
>> Both of these seem ok and sensible to me.
>>
>> They take the concept of the "reverse" flag that already exists in the affected code and just apply it more consistently throughout the various code layers, instead of relying on strategy numbers as intermediate storage. This is both helpful for your ultimate goal in this patch series, and it also makes the affected code areas simpler and more consistent and robust.
>>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Yes, I found the existing use of a btree strategy number rather than a boolean "reverse" flag made using the code from other index AMs needlessly harder. I am glad you see it the same way.
committed
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-10-14 15:34:21 | Re: Adding OLD/NEW support to RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2024-10-14 14:30:49 | Re: Better error reporting from extension scripts (Was: Extend ALTER OPERATOR) |