From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |
Date: | 2008-07-18 05:00:29 |
Message-ID: | 10145.1216357229@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Xiao Meng escribi:
>> You can undefine the macro HASHVALUE_ONLY in hash.h to get the
>> original implementation.
> I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- it just
> makes the patch harder to read.
While we are griping about readability: failure to update the comments
to match the code is NOT, NOT, NOT acceptable. I had barely started
to read the patch before encountering this insult to the reader:
/* Hash indexes are never lossy (at the moment anyway) */
- scan->xs_recheck = false;
+#ifdef HASHVALUE_ONLY
+ scan->xs_recheck = true;
+#else
+ scan->xs_recheck = false;
+#endif
The fact that the patch doesn't touch backend/access/hash/README is
already grounds for rejection, but can't you be bothered to fix a
comment that is literally one line away from where you are making
it wrong?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2008-07-18 05:11:36 | Re: Load spikes on 8.1.11 |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-07-18 04:51:17 | Re: Load spikes on 8.1.11 |