On mån, 2011-07-18 at 11:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Noah Misch <n...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:06:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Noah Misch <n...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> > CheckIndexCompatible() calls ComputeIndexAttrs() to resolve the new > >>> > operator > >>> > classes, collations and exclusion operators for each index column. It > >>> > then > >>> > checks those against the existing values for the same. I figured that > >>> > was > >>> > obvious enough, but do you want a new version noting that? > >>> > >>> I guess one question I had was... are we depending on the fact that > >>> ComputeIndexAttrs() performs a bunch of internal sanity checks? Or > >>> are we just expecting those to always pass, and we're going to examine > >>> the outputs after the fact? > >> > >> Those checks can fail; consider an explicit operator class or collation > >> that > >> does not support the destination type. At that stage, we neither rely on > >> those > >> checks nor mind if they do fire. If we somehow miss the problem at that > >> stage, > >> DefineIndex() will detect it later. Likewise, if we hit an error in > >> CheckIndexCompatible(), we would also hit it later in DefineIndex(). > > > > OK. > > Committed with minor comment and documentation changes.
Please review and fix this compiler warning: indexcmds.c: In function ‘CheckIndexCompatible’: indexcmds.c:126:15: warning: variable ‘amoptions’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
