On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
>
> On 2/28/18 9:46 AM, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
>> В письме от 28 февраля 2018 00:46:36 пользователь Nikita Glukhov написал:
>>
>>> I would like to present patch set implementing opclass parameters.
>>>
>>> This feature was recently presented at pgconf.ru:
>>> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/talks/opclass_pgconf.ru-2018.pdf
>>>
>>> A analogous work was already done by Nikolay Shaplov two years ago:
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5213596.TqFRiqmCTe%40nataraj-amd64
>>> But this patches are not based on it, although they are very similar.
>>
>> You know, I am still working on this issue.
>
> This patch was submitted to the 2018-03 CF at the last moment with no
> prior discussion or review as far as I can tell. It appears to be
> non-trivial and therefore not a good fit for the last CF for PG11.
the idea is simple, the main problem is where to store parameters.
We hoped that we get a bright idea from developers.
>
> In addition, based on Nikolay's response, I think the patch should be
> marked Returned with Feedback until it is reconciled with the existing
> patches.
We proposed something that works and could be useful for people,
especially for people, who use complex json documents. It would
require minimal changes if Nikolay's patch, which is quite invasive,
will be committed in future.
What we need to discuss is the user-visible features - the syntax changes.
>
> Any objects to marking this Returned with Feedback? Or, I can move it
> to the next CF as is.
I think that Returned with Feedback would be good. We will continue
discussion in -hackers.
>
> Regards,
> --
> -David
> david@pgmasters.net
