Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure
Date: 2005-05-30 04:19:29
Message-ID: 429A9451.7090200@paradise.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fixed; turns out to be an ancient parse-analysis bug that was causing
> the view definition to not agree with the function definition if the
> function definition included a nondefault typmod.
> 
> I wonder though why this contrib module is defining its output as
> numeric(10) --- seems like a pretty inefficient choice compared to,
> say, int8; or even int4 which is what the pg_locks view is using.
> 

I couldn't use int4 as the underlying datatype is unsigned int (not 
available as exposed Pg type). However, using int8 sounds promising (is 
int8 larger than unsigned int on 64-bit platforms?).

> And it's arguably a wrong specification anyway, since the code is doing
> nothing to enforce that precision.

Hmmm - that's right, not sure why I did that :-( just using numeric in 
the view might have been more sensible.

cheers

Mark

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-05-30 06:29:40
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-05-30 04:10:46
Subject: Re: Escape handling in COPY, strings, psql

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-05-30 06:29:40
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-05-30 04:10:46
Subject: Re: Escape handling in COPY, strings, psql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group