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

Re: Fix for gistchoose

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix for gistchoose
Date: 2012-08-30 17:39:12
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoai3fYgP_QcuVE3UrfAwXWsMQ5u1i8iiQYbyae7ut674A@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I found that code of gistchoose doesn't follow it's logic. Idea of
>>> gistchoose is that first column penalty is more important than penalty of
>>> second column. If we meet same penalty values of first column then we choose
>>> minimal penalty value of second column among them.
>
>> Nice catch.  Thanks for the patch, which I have now committed.
>
> Should we backpatch that?

Arguably, yes.  Does the patch look sane to you?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-08-30 17:42:55
Subject: Re: splitting *_desc routines
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-08-30 17:34:20
Subject: Re: HEAD crashes on windows when doing VACUUM ANALYZE

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