Re: Remove IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions field
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Remove IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions field |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 38128793-278d-7cb2-5bcf-8a7849e23e98@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Remove IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions field (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Remove IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions field
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 25.08.23 03:31, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:57:58AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> During some refactoring I noticed that the field IndexInfo.ii_OpclassOptions >> is kind of useless. The IndexInfo struct is notionally an executor support >> node, but this field is not used in the executor or by the index AM code. >> It is really just used in DDL code in index.c and indexcmds.c to pass >> information around locally. For that, it would be clearer to just use local >> variables, like for other similar cases. With that change, we can also >> remove RelationGetIndexRawAttOptions(), which only had one caller left, for >> which it was overkill. > > I am not so sure. There is a very recent thread where it has been > pointed out that we have zero support for relcache invalidation with > index options, causing various problems: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGem3qAM7M7B3DdccpgepRxuoKPd2Y74qJ5NSNRjLiN21dPhgg%40mail.gmail.com > > Perhaps we'd better settle on the other one before deciding if the > change you are proposing here is adapted or not. Ok, I'll wait for the resolution of that. At a glance, however, I think my patch is (a) not related, and (b) if it were, it would probably *help*, because the change is to not allocate any long-lived structures that no one needs and that might get out of date.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: