On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:16:34AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I still think using procnum 0 and passing the data through fn_expr are not > the right solution. Firstly, traditionally the amprocs are either required > or optional, with required procs having low procnums and optional starting > at 11 or so. The 0 breaks this, because it's optional but it contradicts > the procnum rule. Also, what happens if we need to add another optional > amproc defined for all AMs? Surely we won't use -1. > > IMHO we should keep AM-specific procnum and pass it somehow to the AM > machinery.
The latest review has not been addressed, and this was 7 weeks ago. So I am marking the patch as returned with feedback. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
