Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id 20180331215606.f2rjezcnzo4fiwgn@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2018-03-31 11:27:14 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'm just saying that there should be two functions here, rather than dropping the old definition, and creating s
newone with a default argument.
 
> 
> So you're asking for something like bt_index_check_heap() +
> bt_index_parent_check_heap()? Or, are you talking about function
> overloading?

The latter. That addresses my concerns about dropping the function and
causing issues due to dependencies.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Arthur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification