On 30.08.23 02:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:51:10AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
At a glance, however, I think my patch is (a) not related, and (b) if it
were, it would probably *help*, because the change is to not allocate any
long-lived structures that no one needs a
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:51:10AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> At a glance, however, I think my patch is (a) not related, and (b) if it
> were, it would probably *help*, because the change is to not allocate any
> long-lived structures that no one needs and that might get out of date.
Hmm, ye
On 25.08.23 03:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:57:58AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
During some refactoring I noticed that the field IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions
is kind of useless. The IndexInfo struct is notionally an executor support
node, but this field is not used in
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:57:58AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> During some refactoring I noticed that the field IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions
> is kind of useless. The IndexInfo struct is notionally an executor support
> node, but this field is not used in the executor or by the index AM code.
Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:26:13 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Remove IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions field
It is unnecessary to include this field in IndexInfo. It is only used
by DDL code, not during execution. It is really only used to pass
local
