Re: Request for removal of BUG #5705 from todo items as no repro

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ankit Kumar Pandey <itsankitkp(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pghackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Request for removal of BUG #5705 from todo items as no repro
Date: 2022-12-31 18:02:31
Message-ID: 1045732.1672509751@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ankit Kumar Pandey <itsankitkp(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is in reference to BUG #5705 and corresponding todo item: Fix
> /contrib/btree_gist's implementation of inet indexing

> I am not able to repro this issue.

You didn't test it right: the complaint is about the btree_gist
extension, not the in-core inet opclass, which didn't even
exist when this bug was filed. AFAICS btree_gist is still
broken. See

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201010112055.o9BKtZf7011251%40wwwmaster.postgresql.org

The commit message for f23a5630e may also be informative:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=f23a5630e

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ankit Kumar Pandey 2022-12-31 18:06:49 Re: Request for removal of BUG #5705 from todo items as no repro
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-12-31 17:23:51 Re: postgres_fdw: using TABLESAMPLE to collect remote sample