Re: pgsql: Generalize hash and ordering support in amapi

On 27.02.25 23:17, Mark Dilger wrote:
> The logic in equality_ops_are_compatible() was trusting that equality 
> operators found in an opfamily for btree or hash were ok, but not 
> trusting operators found in opfamilies of other AMs.  Now, after the 
> patch, other AMs can be marked as suitable.  That's really the core of 
> what the flag means:  "Can the system trust that equality operators 
> found in opfamilies of the AM are well-behaved", or something like 
> that.

Yeah, what might be a good English identifier for that?

>     I also object strongly to the fact that the comments for
>     equality_ops_are_compatible and comparison_ops_are_compatible
>     were not modified:
> 
>       * This is trivially true if they are the same operator.  Otherwise,
>       * we look to see if they can be found in the same btree or hash
>     opfamily.
> 
>       * This is trivially true if they are the same operator.  Otherwise,
>       * we look to see if they can be found in the same btree opfamily.
> 
> I agree these comments need updating.

Mark, can you suggest updated wording for those?