| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Law <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 22:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1999382.1638396843@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think losing precision in the gist penalty is generally OK. Thus,
> it shouldn't be a problem to round a very small value as zero.
Check.
> Probably, we could even tolerate overflow in the gist penalty.
As long as overflow -> infinity, yeah I think so. Seems like it
was a mistake to insert the overflow-testing functions in this code
at all, and we should simplify it down to plain C addition/subtraction/
multiplication.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-01 22:39:55 | Re: BUG #17300: Server crashes on deserializing text multirange |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-12-01 22:08:27 | Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-12-01 22:50:45 | Re: Deprecating the term "super-exclusive lock" |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-12-01 22:08:27 | Re: BUG #17302: gist index prevents insertion of some data |