Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index.
| От | Pavel Borisov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALT9ZEEdoRjX2nQgVgg-nvUUVcc6cNUs0POUkWSz9DyrFH6NRQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. (Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Karina!
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 17:44, Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, hackers!On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:00 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:0005: Rename checkunique parameter to more user friendly as proposed by Peter Eisentraut and Alexander Korotkov
I'm not sure renaming checkunique is a good idea. Other arguments of
bt_index_check and bt_index_parent_check functions (heapallindexed and
rootdescend) don't have underscore character in them. Corresponding
pg_amcheck options (--heapallindexed and --rootdescend) are also written
in one piece. check_unique and --check-unique stand out. Making arguments
and options in different styles doesn't seem user friendly to me.
I did it under the consensus of Peter Eisentraut and Alexander Korotkov.
The pro for renaming is more user-friendly naming, I also agree.
The cons is that we already have both styles: "non-user friendly" heapallindexed and rootdescend and "user-friendly" parent-check.
I'm ready to go with consensus in this matter. It's also not yet too late to make it unique-check (instead of check-unique) to be better in style with parent-check.
Kind regards,
Pavel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: