Re: [HACKERS] Number of index fields configurable
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Number of index fields configurable |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 200001100517.AAA20027@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: [HACKERS] Number of index fields configurable ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Number of index fields configurable
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> >
> > I have moved INDEX_MAX_KEYS to postgres.h, and have removed the
> > hard-coded limits that it is 8 fields. I hope I got all of them. The
> > default is still 8.
> >
> > There were only a few places left that had the 8 hard-coded.
> >
> > I haven't tested non-8 values but they should work.
> >
>
> Shouldn't the following catalog be changed ?
>
> CATALOG(pg_index)
> {
> ....
> int28 indkey;
> ^^^^^
> oid8 indclass;
> ^^^^^
The underlying definitions of the types are now based in the #define
parameter. Not sure if this is going to work so I have not change the
actual type names yet. I have a few more changes to commit now.
Also, what should the new names be? Can't call it int16. Does anyone
outside the source tree rely on those type names?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: