On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2015-09-18 14:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> After, further personal discussion with Teodor, we decided that >> amvalidate is out of scope for this patch. >> It's not evident what should we validate in amvalidate and which way. I >> think if we need amvalidate it should be subject of separate patch.
> But why is it not evident? We do the validations in regression tests, > even if we just copy those then it's enough for a start.
I think the main reason this question is in-scope for this patch is precisely the problem of what do we do about the regression tests.
I'm not in favor of exposing some SQL-level functions whose sole purpose is to support those regression test queries, because while those queries are very useful for detecting errors in handmade opclasses, they're hacks, and always have been. They don't work well (or at all, really) for anything more than btree/hash cases. It'd be better to expose amvalidate functions, even if we don't yet have full infrastructure for them.
I'm OK about continuing work on amvalidate if we can build consuensus on its design.
Could you give some feedback on amvalidate version of patch please?
