On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2015-09-18 14:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> After, further personal discussion with Teodor, we decided that > >> amvalidate is out of scope for this patch. > >> It's not evident what should we validate in amvalidate and which way. I > >> think if we need amvalidate it should be subject of separate patch. > > > But why is it not evident? We do the validations in regression tests, > > even if we just copy those then it's enough for a start. > > I think the main reason this question is in-scope for this patch is > precisely the problem of what do we do about the regression tests. > > I'm not in favor of exposing some SQL-level functions whose sole purpose > is to support those regression test queries, because while those queries > are very useful for detecting errors in handmade opclasses, they're hacks, > and always have been. They don't work well (or at all, really) for > anything more than btree/hash cases. It'd be better to expose amvalidate > functions, even if we don't yet have full infrastructure for them. > I'm OK about continuing work on amvalidate if we can build consuensus on its design. Could you give some feedback on amvalidate version of patch please? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfds8zywenz9vw6te5rzxbol1vu_wsw181veq+mu+v1d...@mail.gmail.com ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
