Hi,
On 2018-11-06 17:11:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2018-11-06 16:47:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looks like somebody forgot to list
> >> RELOPT_KIND_GIST in RELOPT_KIND_INDEX, but is that the
> >> fault of commit c203d6cf8 or was it busted before?
>
> > Looks new:
> > + RELOPT_KIND_INDEX = RELOPT_KIND_BTREE|RELOPT_KIND_HASH|RELOPT_KIND_GIN|RELOPT_KIND_SPGIST,
> > there aren't any other "for all indexes" type options, so the whole
> > category didn't exist before.
>
> > It also strikes me as a really bad idea, even if RELOPT_KIND_GIST
> > wouldn't have been omitted: It breaks index am extensibility.
>
> Hm, well, that enum already knows about all index types, doesn't it?
Not quite sure what you mean.
Before c203d6cf8 there weren't reloptions across index types. But after
it, if one adds a new index AM via an extension, one can't set
recheck_on_update = false for indexes using it, even though the feature
affects such indexes. We support adding indexes AMs at runtime these
days, including WAL logging (even though that's a bit
voluminous). There's even a contrib index AM...
The list of AMs is supposed to be extensible at runtime, cf
add_reloption_kind().
Greetings,
Andres Freund
