On 26.05.25 23:18, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 10:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> I agree this rename makes sense.
>
> Here do we want to say "respective operator class" instead of
> "respective operator family"? Or "operator class/family"? Technically
> btree_gist attaches it to the whole opfamily, but that's only because
> there is no appropriate ALTER OPERATOR CLASS functionality:
Thanks, I have committed it as is. The function is part of the operator
family; I guess there could be different interpretations about why that
is so, but I think this would introduce more confusion if we somehow
talked about operator classes in this context.
