On 27.02.25 23:17, Mark Dilger wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 8:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org
> <mailto:peter@eisentraut.org>> writes:
> > Generalize hash and ordering support in amapi
> > Stop comparing access method OID values against HASH_AM_OID and
> > BTREE_AM_OID, and instead check the IndexAmRoutine for an index
> to see
> > if it advertises its ability to perform the necessary ordering,
> > hashing, or cross-type comparing functionality. A field amcanorder
> > already existed, this uses it more widely. Fields amcanhash and
> > amcancrosscompare are added for the other purposes.
>
> AFAICS, this patch sets amcancrosscompare true only for btree,
> which means this change to equality_ops_are_compatible is surely wrong:
>
> - /* must be btree or hash */
> - if (op_form->amopmethod == BTREE_AM_OID ||
> - op_form->amopmethod == HASH_AM_OID)
> + if (amroutine->amcancrosscompare)
>
>
> It seems you are right. hashhandler()'s amroutine should have this
> true, also.
I have fixed that. I will come back to the rest of the discussion in a bit.