On 26.05.25 23:18, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 10:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote:
Here we added a gist support function that we internally refer to by the
symbol GIST_STRATNUM_PROC. This translated from "well-known" strategy
numbers to opfamily-specific strategy numbers. However, we later
changed this to fit into index-AM-level compare type mapping, so this
function actually now maps from compare type to opfamily-specific
strategy numbers. So I'm wondering if this name is still good.
Moreover, the index AM level also supports the opposite, a function to
map from strategy number to compare type. This is currently not
supported in gist, but one might wonder what this function is supposed
to be called when it is added.
So I went through and updated the naming of the gist-level functionality
to be more in line with the index-AM-level functionality; see attached
patch. I think this makes sense because these are essentially the same
thing on different levels. What do you think? (This would be for PG18.)
I agree this rename makes sense.
Here do we want to say "respective operator class" instead of
"respective operator family"? Or "operator class/family"? Technically
btree_gist attaches it to the whole opfamily, but that's only because
there is no appropriate ALTER OPERATOR CLASS functionality:
Thanks, I have committed it as is. The function is part of the operator
family; I guess there could be different interpretations about why that
is so, but I think this would introduce more confusion if we somehow
talked about operator classes in this context.
