From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Gist Recovery testing |
Date: | 2005-06-14 14:31:03 |
Message-ID: | 28437.1118759463@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
>> Rather than eating up the extra flag bit, though, would it be possible
>> to change the tuple to appear to contain a NULL?
> We would like to preserve NULL as non-special value because we hope to add
> support of NULLs to GiST, although it's of low priority.
Fair enough.
> In other side, IndexTupleData contains ItemPointerData which contains
> block number and offset. GiST doesn't use offset on inner pages (on
> leaf pages, ItemPointerData points to heap tuple), it always equal
> FirstOffsetNumber. So I can use offset to indicate correctness of
> tuple's key...
OK, that's a tad klugy but I agree with the approach. I'd like to
preserve the spare flag bit in IndexTuple->t_info --- we might need
that someday.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Siebert | 2005-06-14 14:36:42 | Re: pg_dumpall not working? |
Previous Message | John Hansen | 2005-06-14 14:30:02 | Re: PG_FREE_IF_COPY() |