Re: use of SEQ_MINVALUE in btree_gin

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: use of SEQ_MINVALUE in btree_gin
Date: 2016-07-12 16:26:38
Message-ID: 25383.1468340798@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> btree_gin uses SEQ_MINVALUE as a way to get the smallest int64 value.
> This is actually wrong because the smallest int64 value is
> SEQ_MINVALUE-1, so this might be slightly broken.

> The whole thing was done as a convenience when INT64_IS_BUSTED had to be
> considered, but I think we can get rid of that now. See attached
> proposed patch.

+1. I agree that this is actually a bug fix, so it should be back-patched.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-07-12 16:40:34 Re: GiST index build versus NaN coordinates
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-07-12 16:17:57 Re: Showing parallel status in \df+