Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>> care of a patch for btree and hash
> I think here we should first agree on what we want to do. Based on
> Tom's comment, I was thinking of changing comments in btree/hash part
> and additionally for hash indexes, I can see if we can pass
> REGBUF_STANDARD for all usages of metapage. I am not sure if we want
> similar exercise for btree as well.
FWIW, now that we've noticed the discrepancy, I'm for using
REGBUF_STANDARD or equivalent for all metapage calls. Even if it
saves no space, inconsistency is bad because it's confusing. And
Michael is correct to point out that we can exploit this to
improve WAL consistency checking.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
