From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:04:05 +0300
Message-ID: <3455090.QJadu78ljV@thinkpad-pgpro>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <202312081259.2pwkb25emowf@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202312081259.2pwkb25emowf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1875106.CQOukoFCf9";
 micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3455090.QJadu78ljV%40thinkpad-pgpro>
Precedence: bulk

--nextPart1875106.CQOukoFCf9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:04:05 +0300
Message-ID: <3455090.QJadu78ljV@thinkpad-pgpro>
Organization: Postgres Professional
In-Reply-To: <202312081259.2pwkb25emowf@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202312081259.2pwkb25emowf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0

=D0=92 =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=D0=BC=D0=B5 =D0=BE=D1=82 =D0=BF=D1=8F=D1=82=
=D0=BD=D0=B8=D1=86=D0=B0, 8 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=B1=D1=80=D1=8F 2023=
 =D0=B3. 15:59:09 MSK =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B0=D1=
=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Alvaro=20
Herrera =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:

> > Theoretically I can create patch with full options.c as it is in the pa=
tch
> > now, and use that code only in index AM, and keep reloption.c mostly
> > unchanged.
> >=20
> > 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?
>=20
> 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've written quite good regression tests for it, there should be no=20
inconsistency.
=20
> I'm not seeing any reasonable way to split this patch in smaller ones.
Actually me neither. Not a good one anyway.

But if somebody really need it to be split, it can be done that way.

=2D-=20
Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj
=46uzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional
Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su

--nextPart1875106.CQOukoFCf9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEE+sk3ebqQKlezKOi8PMbfuIHAGpgFAmVzFEUACgkQPMbfuIHA
GpgrlggAkSedq8P5RlITjJUGrjIWEa4jZTDu8pOMaLMvMDOoxbEoSy11X3V8Okn3
cd5niOAUo8wm24bCOtHHILp+7txiiODccb4kKNeVaU1ShKNhdaFWWGcTguybuR5J
Big6wDkP1T+vuTk04I765ygQm1NKr7anb5vhFfONwfgAggRkrstN270CPwOVDmOA
m0Wpbxq4DIq+/1qb+g53uz5cHv7w3Wh+PE9drpljuO6oV1wLw/0aHqFfBPNjxTpK
tt4U/PszJ8xHut3X9tgrpf0OQilxuHVdujIrdLV2+A98qwL3gblO/uxQgwtnFNXa
Pn9p149NztDCCNcYhwUnaw8p2770YQ==
=A0zl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1875106.CQOukoFCf9--