Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tatsuhito Kasahara <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes
Date: 2008-03-21 02:41:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> > I fix the patch.
> Oops, I forgot to attach the patch for pgstattuple.sql.
> I send it again.

Hmm, this followup patch is wrong though -- the SQL definition is still
using BIGINT where it should be using double.  And the other changes to
use BIGINT where the original values were int4 seem unnecessary.

One thing I'm not clear about is the change from %d to %u to represent
int4 values.  Since the SQL datatype is signed, this can't really work,
now, can it?

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-21 02:45:36
Subject: Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-21 00:06:03
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Show INHERIT in \du

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group