On 2007-03-02, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2007-03-02, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think these are actual bugs. If you happened to provide a large enough
>>> datum
>>> to the gist code it would cause the same problem I'm seeing. The packed
>>> varlena patch just makes it easier to trigger.
>
>> Are you taking into account the fact that, at least prior to your patch,
>> values in index tuples could never be toasted?
>
> False --- see index_form_tuple().

My mistake.

A closer reading, however, shows that at least for cases like intarray,
btree_gist, etc., the detoasting of an index value is being done in the
gist decompress function, so the value seen via GISTENTRY in the other
functions should already have been detoasted once.

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

In response to

• Re: GIST and TOAST at 2007-03-02 18:49:14 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: GIST and TOAST at 2007-03-05 16:29:31 from Teodor Sigaev

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Zoltan Boszormenyi	Date: 2007-03-02 19:55:25
	Subject: Re: Final version of IDENTITY/GENERATED patch
Previous:	From: Josh Berkus	Date: 2007-03-02 19:17:46
	Subject: Re: UPSERT