public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 09:31:24 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+renyWnEJOUb_Oq24Vy-X+7e+ynxVxknGm-P3+OQXmFD99tjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CACJufxHPQaD+q6o_AMg1PG6ETOWC=VqzN_=6QV9C5zbR8j=Tww@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CACJufxESqArbu=R8m3a+ZF-Yia26KTGpEnyqz+8d5BXb1o=c=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACJufxECGaLjMcN8TJbX1fGrMFKs6qu+6RiZm98=sLcpiVpu2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+renyWnEJOUb_Oq24Vy-X+7e+ynxVxknGm-P3+OQXmFD99tjw@mail.gmail.com>

On 26.05.25 23:18, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 10:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Here we added a gist support function that we internally refer to by the
>> symbol GIST_STRATNUM_PROC.  This translated from "well-known" strategy
>> numbers to opfamily-specific strategy numbers.  However, we later
>> changed this to fit into index-AM-level compare type mapping, so this
>> function actually now maps from compare type to opfamily-specific
>> strategy numbers.  So I'm wondering if this name is still good.
>>
>> Moreover, the index AM level also supports the opposite, a function to
>> map from strategy number to compare type.  This is currently not
>> supported in gist, but one might wonder what this function is supposed
>> to be called when it is added.
>>
>> So I went through and updated the naming of the gist-level functionality
>> to be more in line with the index-AM-level functionality; see attached
>> patch.  I think this makes sense because these are essentially the same
>> thing on different levels.  What do you think?  (This would be for PG18.)
> 
> I agree this rename makes sense.
> 
> Here do we want to say "respective operator class" instead of
> "respective operator family"? Or "operator class/family"? Technically
> btree_gist attaches it to the whole opfamily, but that's only because
> there is no appropriate ALTER OPERATOR CLASS functionality:

Thanks, I have committed it as is.  The function is part of the operator 
family; I guess there could be different interpretations about why that 
is so, but I think this would introduce more confusion if we somehow 
talked about operator classes in this context.

view thread (62+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox