On 27.02.25 23:17, Mark Dilger wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 8:27 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org <mailto:pe...@eisentraut.org>> writes: > Generalize hash and ordering support in amapi > Stop comparing access method OID values against HASH_AM_OID and > BTREE_AM_OID, and instead check the IndexAmRoutine for an index to see > if it advertises its ability to perform the necessary ordering, > hashing, or cross-type comparing functionality. A field amcanorder > already existed, this uses it more widely. Fields amcanhash and > amcancrosscompare are added for the other purposes. AFAICS, this patch sets amcancrosscompare true only for btree, which means this change to equality_ops_are_compatible is surely wrong: - /* must be btree or hash */ - if (op_form->amopmethod == BTREE_AM_OID || - op_form->amopmethod == HASH_AM_OID) + if (amroutine->amcancrosscompare)It seems you are right. hashhandler()'s amroutine should have this true, also.
I have fixed that. I will come back to the rest of the discussion in a bit.
