Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > If you want technical details I can do that too (the summary on > pg-patches a while ago is now wildly out of date). Currently I'm trying > to get up to speed on pathkeys and indexes before the tree drifts too > far...
I've given this advice before to other people: trying to develop a large patch "in hiding" is doomed to failure. And the sort of patch you are talking about isn't large ... it's massive. Combine that with the fact that you don't even seem to have gotten any pghackers buy-in yet on what you are doing, and you are setting yourself up to have the patch rejected, in the unlikely scenario that it's ever completed. My bet is that you by yourself will be unable to complete it, simply because the tree will drift under you faster than you can respond. (Case in point: my current project on row-wise comparisons is going to affect ScanKeys. I'm not sure how yet, but in designing that I won't be considering what impact it might have on you, because I have no idea what you might be trying to do in that area.) I would recommend posting some fairly detailed design discussions concerning what you see as the new semantics, API, and catalog representation for operators and operator classes. If you haven't got buy-in at that level from the hackers list, it's premature to be writing any code at all. I would further recommend that you ask for help rather than trying to complete the project by yourself. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster