Re: pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Teodor Sigaev
Subject Re: pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful?
Date
Msg-id 458654E8.2000500@sigaev.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_am.amstrategies should be 0 when not meaningful?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I propose that we should set pg_am.amstrategies to zero when the index
> AM doesn't have a fixed interpretation of strategy numbers.  This would
> make it clearer that there's no intended upper bound.  It would also

Agreed. BTW, that also plays around possibility of grouping operator classes - 
since GIN/GiST hasn't fixed strategy numbers, they opclasses can not be unioned 
into group without extra agreement.

> Comments?  Can anyone think of anything that is likely to break?
> (I can only see one or two trivial code adjustments that would be
> needed.)
> 
>             regards, tom lane

-- 
Teodor Sigaev                                   E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
  WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Albe Laurenz"
Date:
Subject: Re: unixware and --with-ldap
Next
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: Operator class group proposal