On 17.09.24 11:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05.09.24 14:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 07.08.24 22:54, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>>> Here are some fixes based on outstanding feedback (some old some new).
>>
>> I have studied your patches v39-0001 through v39-0004, which
>> correspond to what had been reverted plus the new empty range check
>> plus various minor fixes. This looks good to me now, so I propose to
>> go ahead with that.
>>
>> Btw., in your 0003 you point out that this prevents using the WITHOUT
>> OVERLAPS functionality for non-range types. But I think this could be
>> accomplished by adding an "is empty" callback as a support function or
>> something like that. I'm not suggesting to do that here, but it might
>> be worth leaving a comment about that possibility.
>
> I have committed these, as explained here.
Here we added a gist support function that we internally refer to by the
symbol GIST_STRATNUM_PROC. This translated from "well-known" strategy
numbers to opfamily-specific strategy numbers. However, we later
changed this to fit into index-AM-level compare type mapping, so this
function actually now maps from compare type to opfamily-specific
strategy numbers. So I'm wondering if this name is still good.
Moreover, the index AM level also supports the opposite, a function to
map from strategy number to compare type. This is currently not
supported in gist, but one might wonder what this function is supposed
to be called when it is added.
So I went through and updated the naming of the gist-level functionality
to be more in line with the index-AM-level functionality; see attached
patch. I think this makes sense because these are essentially the same
thing on different levels. What do you think? (This would be for PG18.)
