Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:59:09 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Cc: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>, 
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Message-ID: <202312081259.2pwkb25emowf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5892085.MhkbZ0Pkbq@thinkpad-pgpro>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202312081259.2pwkb25emowf%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-Dec-08, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:

> Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the patch 
> now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly 
> unchanged.
> 
> This will be total mess with two different options mechanisms working in the 
> same time, but this might be much more easy to review.  When we are done with 
> the first step, we can change the rest.
> If this will help to finally include patch into postgres, I can do it. Will 
> that help you to review?

I don't think that's better, because we could create slight
inconsistencies between the code used for index AMs and the users of
reloptions.

I'm not seeing any reasonable way to split this patch in smaller ones.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No necesitamos banderas
 No reconocemos fronteras"                  (Jorge González)