On 8/29/25 10:38, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:57, Matthias van de Meent > <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 20 May 2025, 22:14 Peter Geoghegan, <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >>>> I wonder if we can fix this problem by getting rid of the old support >>>> routine #5, "options". It currently doesn't do anything, and I always >>>> thought it was strange that it was added "for uniformity" with other >>>> index AMs. >>> >>> Attached patch completely removes the nbtree "options" support >>> function, while changing the support function number of skip support: >>> it becomes support function #5 (the number previously used by >>> "options"). This patch should fix the regression that Tomas complained >>> about in an expedient way. >>> >>> It's likely that somebody else will run into the same problem in the >>> future, the next time that a new support function is needed. But I >>> think that it makes sense to do this much now -- we need a short term >>> solution for Postgres 18. > > I just realized I hadn't checked in on this in a while, and I haven't > seen Peter's patch get committed, nor my 0001. Do we consider this an > Open Item and should this be improved in PG18, or is this something > the user is expected to figure out and configure their systems for? > > If we want to fix it let's make a decision before RC1, so we don't > have further breaking catalog changes between RC1 and 18.0. >
The thing is that if we want to make this to RC1, it needs to go in *today*. The RC1 is planned for next week, and there's a freeze starting tomorrow. > cc-ed RMT as this might be Open Item-worthy, and the patches up for > debate both change catalog behaviour. > I agree with this, personally. Maybe the other RMT members will see it differently, but it's probably to add an open item and then remove it than miss an issue. > Peter's patch at [0] changes opclass procedure numbers to reuse an > existing but unused options regproc number. > My 0001 at [1] changes the memory residence status of index access > methods' handler_function output to const static, from dynamic in > memctx. > IIRC both approaches address the issue. I'd go with Peter's patch for 18. The other patch is much more invasive / bigger, and we're right before RC1 freeze. Maybe it's a good idea, but I'd say it's for 19. Peter, any thoughts on this. Do you think it's reasonable / feasible to push the fix? regards -- Tomas Vondra
