Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Paquier
>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Coordinating efforts here would be nice. If you, Amit K, are taking
>>>> care of a patch for btree and hash
>>
>>> I think here we should first agree on what we want to do.  Based on
>>> Tom's comment, I was thinking of changing comments in btree/hash part
>>> and additionally for hash indexes, I can see if we can pass
>>> REGBUF_STANDARD for all usages of metapage.  I am not sure if we want
>>> similar exercise for btree as well.
>>
>> FWIW, now that we've noticed the discrepancy, I'm for using
>> REGBUF_STANDARD or equivalent for all metapage calls.  Even if it
>> saves no space, inconsistency is bad because it's confusing.
>>
>
> Agreed.  However, I feel there is no harm in doing in two patches, one
> for hash/btree and second for all other indexes (or maybe separate
> patches for them as well; I haven't yet looked into the work involved
> for other indexes) unless you prefer to do it all at a one-shot.
>

I have prepared separate patches for hash and btree index.  I think
for another type of indexes, it is better to first fix the pd_lower
issue.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers