Hi, Zardosht! On Jan 15, Zardosht Kasheff wrote: > > Unfortunately, we need to do comparisons during phases when the Table > object, and therefore the Field object, may not be around, such as > during recovery. So for fixed length fields, we privately encode their > length and metadata that explains how to compare them.
Yes, of course. I've seen this in other engines too. I mean, that to decide on how to compare, it's better to look at Field::key_type(), not at Field::type(). You can still privately encode this decision and store it in the table or elsewhere, field's key_type() will never change without an ALTER TABLE. > > But really the API-correct way is to use Field::key_type() method > > and compare the values using the specified method. It's more > > future-proof than to hard-code comparison method mapping based on > > the field types. Regards, Sergei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
