Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch to improve amvalidate functions

Tom Lane wrote: > I'm posting this now just in case anyone has some comments, or quibbles > about the overall intent. In particular, if anyone has an idea for a more > thorough missing-objects check on BRIN opfamilies, I would like to hear > it. The fact that there are two kinds of opfamilies

Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch to improve amvalidate functions

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm posting this now just in case anyone has some comments, or quibbles >> about the overall intent. In particular, if anyone has an idea for a more >> thorough missing-objects check on BRIN opfamilies, I would like to hear >>

[HACKERS] WIP patch to improve amvalidate functions

I spent some time trying to improve the amvalidate functions that were committed in a rather crude state in 65c5fcd353a859da. Attached is a very-much-WIP patch showing where I'm headed: * Check operator and function signatures (argument and result types) not only their strategy numbers. * Apply