| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Rémi Zara <remi_zara(at)mac(dot)com>, Stefan Huehner <stefan(at)huehner(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alpha4 release blockers (was Re: wrapping up this CommitFest) |
| Date: | 2011-03-06 16:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | 12520.1299430488@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Ah. Finally after trying to stare down the code for some more time the issue
> is pretty simple.
> - fmgr_info_collation(irel->rd_index->indcollation.values[attnum-1],
> + fmgr_info_collation(irel->rd_indcollation[attnum-1],
Good catch ... but while I was poking around to make sure that there
were no other similar errors, I started to get pretty desperately
unhappy with the state of this code altogether. What exactly is
indcollation supposed to mean? Does it have any meaning for unordered
indexes? If it means something about the index's sort order, why is it
that it's not consulted while building the pathkeys that represent the
sort order? (It isn't.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-03-06 17:14:18 | Downtime for commitfest.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-03-06 16:14:33 | Re: Sync Rep v19 |