On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:25 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I've looked at that patch only very briefly so far, but I agree it's
> likely a better solution than what my patch does at the moment (which I
> agree is a misuse of the AM-level options). I'll take a closer look.
>
> I agree it makes sense to re-use that infrastructure for this patch, but
> I'm hesitant to rebase it on top of that patch right away. Because it
> would mean this thread dependent on it, which would confuse cputube,
> make it bitrot faster etc.
>
> So I suggest we ignore this aspect of the patch for now, and let's talk
> about the other bits first.
Works for me. We don't need to make the whole work made by this patch
to be dependent on opclass parameters. It's OK to ignore this aspect
for now and come back when opclass parameters get committed.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
