Re: Collation versioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Collation versioning
Date
Msg-id 20200708062620.GD18003@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Collation versioning  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Collation versioning
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:12:51PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I still wish I had a better idea than this:
>
> +/*
> + * Returns whether the given index access method depend on a stable collation
> + * order.
> + */
> +static bool
> +index_depends_stable_coll_order(Oid amoid)
> +{
> +       return (amoid != HASH_AM_OID &&
> +                       strcmp(get_am_name(amoid), "bloom") != 0);
> +}
>
> I'm doing some more testing and looking for weird cases...  More soon.

Wouldn't the normal way to track that a new field in IndexAmRoutine?
What you have here is not extensible.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Modifying data type of slot_keep_segs from XLogRecPtr to XLogSegNo
Next
From: "kato-sho@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Performing partition pruning using row value