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?
