On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>>> care of a patch for btree and hash
>
>> I think here we should first agree on what we want to do. Based on
>> Tom's comment, I was thinking of changing comments in btree/hash part
>> and additionally for hash indexes, I can see if we can pass
>> REGBUF_STANDARD for all usages of metapage. I am not sure if we want
>> similar exercise for btree as well.
>
> FWIW, now that we've noticed the discrepancy, I'm for using
> REGBUF_STANDARD or equivalent for all metapage calls. Even if it
> saves no space, inconsistency is bad because it's confusing.
>
Agreed. However, I feel there is no harm in doing in two patches, one
for hash/btree and second for all other indexes (or maybe separate
patches for them as well; I haven't yet looked into the work involved
for other indexes) unless you prefer to do it all at a one-shot.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers