On 7/7/25 13:06, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 10:49 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2025-Jul-06, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, forget to run a full test run with the new patch version. Some
>>> tests were unhappy with the new unknown support function. Here the new
>>> version with the fix.
>>
>> Hello, I think this patch is probably a good idea. I don't think it
>> makes sense to introduce a bunch of code in 0003 only to rewrite it
>> completely in 0005. I would ask that you re-split your WITHIN_RANGE
>> (0004) to appear before the amcheck code, and then write the amcheck
>> code using that new functionality.
>
> Hi, Álvaro!
>
> Thank you for looking into this.
>
> OK, we can easily revert to the version with consistent function if
> needed, so let's get rid of it.
>
Alvaro, what's your opinion on the introduction of the new WITHIN_RANGE?
I'd probably try to do this using the regular consistent function:
(a) we don't need to add stuff to all BRIN opclasses to support this
(b) it gives us additional testing of the consistent function
(c) building a scan key for equality seems pretty trivial
What do you think?
--
Tomas Vondra
