On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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. >
Agreed. However, I feel there is no harm in doing in two patches, one for hash/btree and second for all other indexes (or maybe separate patches for them as well; I haven't yet looked into the work involved for other indexes) unless you prefer to do it all at a one-shot. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
