Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <1789fe14-c19d-4025-9201-0eb8faa0840b@eisentraut.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:46:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: pgsql: Generalize hash and ordering support in amapi
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1tngY6-0000UL-2n@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <2557074.1740673653@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHgHdKuCQ3Dh8wt9QxWRmezgE62qzYW86T9Mv1n5s3fOJ4G2dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHgHdKuCQ3Dh8wt9QxWRmezgE62qzYW86T9Mv1n5s3fOJ4G2dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1789fe14-c19d-4025-9201-0eb8faa0840b%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 27.02.25 23:17, Mark Dilger wrote:
> The logic in equality_ops_are_compatible() was trusting that equality 
> operators found in an opfamily for btree or hash were ok, but not 
> trusting operators found in opfamilies of other AMs.  Now, after the 
> patch, other AMs can be marked as suitable.  That's really the core of 
> what the flag means:  "Can the system trust that equality operators 
> found in opfamilies of the AM are well-behaved", or something like 
> that.

Yeah, what might be a good English identifier for that?

>     I also object strongly to the fact that the comments for
>     equality_ops_are_compatible and comparison_ops_are_compatible
>     were not modified:
> 
>       * This is trivially true if they are the same operator.  Otherwise,
>       * we look to see if they can be found in the same btree or hash
>     opfamily.
> 
>       * This is trivially true if they are the same operator.  Otherwise,
>       * we look to see if they can be found in the same btree opfamily.
> 
> I agree these comments need updating.

Mark, can you suggest updated wording for those?