On 27.02.25 23:17, Mark Dilger wrote:
The logic in equality_ops_are_compatible() was trusting that equality
operators found in an opfamily for btree or hash were ok, but not
trusting operators found in opfamilies of other AMs. Now, after the
patch, other AMs can be marked as suitable. That's really the core of
what the flag means: "Can the system trust that equality operators
found in opfamilies of the AM are well-behaved", or something like
that.
Yeah, what might be a good English identifier for that?
I also object strongly to the fact that the comments for
equality_ops_are_compatible and comparison_ops_are_compatible
were not modified:
* This is trivially true if they are the same operator. Otherwise,
* we look to see if they can be found in the same btree or hash
opfamily.
* This is trivially true if they are the same operator. Otherwise,
* we look to see if they can be found in the same btree opfamily.
I agree these comments need updating.
Mark, can you suggest updated wording for those?
