Hi, On 2018-11-06 17:11:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-11-06 16:47:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Looks like somebody forgot to list > >> RELOPT_KIND_GIST in RELOPT_KIND_INDEX, but is that the > >> fault of commit c203d6cf8 or was it busted before? > > > Looks new: > > + RELOPT_KIND_INDEX = > > RELOPT_KIND_BTREE|RELOPT_KIND_HASH|RELOPT_KIND_GIN|RELOPT_KIND_SPGIST, > > there aren't any other "for all indexes" type options, so the whole > > category didn't exist before. > > > It also strikes me as a really bad idea, even if RELOPT_KIND_GIST > > wouldn't have been omitted: It breaks index am extensibility. > > Hm, well, that enum already knows about all index types, doesn't it?
Not quite sure what you mean. Before c203d6cf8 there weren't reloptions across index types. But after it, if one adds a new index AM via an extension, one can't set recheck_on_update = false for indexes using it, even though the feature affects such indexes. We support adding indexes AMs at runtime these days, including WAL logging (even though that's a bit voluminous). There's even a contrib index AM... The list of AMs is supposed to be extensible at runtime, cf add_reloption_kind(). Greetings, Andres Freund
