On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:21 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@kurilemu.de> wrote: > > On 2025-Jul-07, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > Alvaro, what's your opinion on the introduction of the new WITHIN_RANGE? > > I'd probably try to do this using the regular consistent function: > > > > (a) we don't need to add stuff to all BRIN opclasses to support this > > > > (b) it gives us additional testing of the consistent function > > > > (c) building a scan key for equality seems pretty trivial > > > > What do you think? > > Oh yeah, if we can build this on top of the existing primitives, then > I'm all for that.
Thank you for the feedback! I agree with the benefits. Speaking of (с), it seems most of the time to be really trivial to build such a ScanKey, but not every opclass supports '=' operator. amcheck should handle these cases somehow then. I see two options here. The first is to not provide 'heap all indexed' check for such opclasses, which is sad because even one core opclass (box_inclusion_ops) doesn't support '=' operator, postgis brin opclasses don't support it too AFAICS. The second option is to let the user define which operator to use during the check, which, I think, makes user experience much worse in this case. So both options look not good from the user POV as for me, so I don't know. What do you think about it? And should I revert the patchset to the consistent function version then? Best regards, Arseniy Mukhin
