On 02.03.2018 19:12, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
В письме от 1 марта 2018 23:02:20 пользователь Oleg Bartunov написал:
2. Your patch does not provide any example of your new tool usage. In my
prototype patch I've shown the implementation of opclass options for
intarray. May be you should do the same. (Use my example it will be more
easy then do it from scratch). It will give more understanding of how
this improvement can be used.
Hey, look on patches, there are many examples !
Oups...Sorry. I've looked at the patch from commitfest
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1559/ and it have shown only the first
file. And When I read the letter I did not pay attention to attachments at
all. So I was sure there is only one there.
Yes. Now I see seven examples. But I think seven it is too many.
For each case a reviewer should make consideration if this parameter worth
moving to opclass options, or fixed definition in the C code is quite ok.
Doing it for whole bunch, may make it messy. I think, it would be good to
commit an implementation of opclass options, with a good example of usage. And
then commit patches for all cases where these options can be used.
There are 5 examples for GiST opclasses, not 7, and they are almost
identical -- in all of them added 'siglen' parameter for signature length
specification.
But since it is now "Rejected with feedback", let's wait till autumn.
We don't want to wait that long. But now we only need to сome to an agreement
about CREATE INDEX syntax and where to store the opclass parameters.
--
Nikita Glukhov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
