On 11.07.23 07:52, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 8:06 AM Paul A Jungwirth
> <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:05 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what value we would get from testing this with btree_gist,
>>> but if we wanted to do that, then adding a new test file to the
>>> btree_gist sql/ directory would seem reasonable to me.
>>>
>>> (I would make the test a little bit bigger than you had shown, like
>>> insert a few values.)
>>>
>>> If you want to do that, please send another patch. Otherwise, I'm ok to
>>> commit this one.
>>
>> I can get you a patch tonight or tomorrow. I think it's worth it since
>> btree_gist uses different strategy numbers than ordinary gist.
>
> Patch attached.
Looks good, committed.
I had some second thoughts about the use of get_attname(). It seems the
previous code used the dominant style of extracting the attribute name
from the open relation handle, so I kept it that way. That's also more
efficient than going via the syscache.