On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index. I think for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower issue. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
change_metapage_usage_hash-v1.patch
Description: Binary data
change_metapage_usage_btree-v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
