On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:38 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > On 24.10.23 22:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:44 AM Aleksander Alekseev > > <aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote: > >>> I think, this patch was marked as "Waiting on Author", probably, by > >>> mistake. Since recent changes were done without any significant code > >>> changes and CF bot how happy again. > >>> > >>> I'm going to move it to RfC, could I? If not, please tell why. > >> > >> I restored the "Ready for Committer" state. I don't think it's a good > >> practice to change the state every time the patch has a slight > >> conflict or something. This is not helpful at all. Such things happen > >> quite regularly and typically are fixed in a couple of days. > > > > This patch seems useful to me. I went through the thread, it seems > > that all the critics are addressed. > > > > I've rebased this patch. Also, I've run perltidy for tests, split > > long errmsg() into errmsg(), errdetail() and errhint(), and do other > > minor enchantments. > > > > I think this patch is ready to go. I'm going to push it if there are > > no objections. > > I just found the new pg_amcheck option --checkunique in PG17-to-be. > Could we rename this to --check-unique? Seems friendlier. Maybe also > rename the bt_index_check function argument to check_unique.
+1 from me Let's do so if nobody objects. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
