> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 19:45, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> написал(а):
>
>> How do you think, should this patch and patch with pageinspect GiST
>> functions be registered on commitfest?
>
> Yeah, that'd be good.
I've registered both patches on January CF.
pageinspect patch's code looks goot to me (besides TODO item there), but it
lacks docs and tests. I can add some info and calls in future reviews.
>
> On 30/10/2020 20:20, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> A few quick comments:
>
> * Currently with float8, you immediately abort abbreviation if SIZEOF_DATUM
> == 4. Like in the 'inet' above, you could convert the float8 to float4
> instead.
>
> * Some of the ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY commands in btree_gist--1.6--1.7.sql are
> copy-pasted wrong. Here's one example:
>
> ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY gist_timestamptz_ops USING gist ADD
> FUNCTION 11 (text, text) gbt_text_sortsupport;
>
> * It's easy to confuse the new comparison functions with the existing
> comparisons used by the picksplit functions. Some comments and/or naming
> changes would be good to clarify how they're different.
>
> * It would be straightforward to have abbreviated functions for macaddr and
> macaddr8 too.
I'll fix these issues soon. But things like this bother me a lot:
> ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY gist_timestamptz_ops USING gist ADD
> FUNCTION 11 (text, text) gbt_text_sortsupport;
To test that functions are actually called for sorting build we should support
directive sorting build like "CREATE INDEX ON A USING GIST(B)
WITH(sorting=surely,and fail if not)".
If we have unconditional sorting build and unconditional buffered build we can
check opclasses code better.
The problem is current reloption is called "buffering". It would be strange if
we gave this enum possible value like "not buffering, but very much like
buffering, just another way".
How do you think, is it ok to add reloption "buffering=sorting" to enhance
tests?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
