Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
Date: 2026-04-16 17:47:05
Message-ID: 2438252.1776361625@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 16/04/2026 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not excited about making massive changes for this.

> Having all three would be a very localized change in postgres.h.

Sure, but *using* them in a consistent way would be invasive.

>> I remain far less certain than Peter is that this discussion has
>> anything to do with why Coverity is complaining about
>> ginExtractEntries. I still think we should make some minimum-effort
>> change to see if the complaint goes away before expending a lot of
>> brain cells on choosing a final fix.

> I think I'm going to commit my proposal to turn PointerGetDatum() back
> into a macro, and see if that makes Coverity happy. Then we'll know, and
> we can decide on the next steps. Any objections?

WFM.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matheus Alcantara 2026-04-16 18:03:11 Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-04-16 17:30:51 Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes