From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] btree_gist: fix union implementation for variable length columns |
Date: | 2018-07-11 17:26:40 |
Message-ID: | 378.1531330000@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 7:41:59 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hi Pavel! For patches that purport to resolve bugs, we usually like to
>> add a regression test case that demonstrates the bug in unpatched code.
>> Can you provide a small test case that does so? (The BZ you pointed to
>> doesn't seem to address this...)
> Turns out the problem is only related to bit/bit varying type (so the
> patch comments need to be reworded properly, at least) since those are the
> only types which have implemented the f_l2n() callback.
What I'm failing to wrap my head around is why this code exists at all.
AFAICS, gbt_bit_xfrm just forces the bitstring to be zero-padded out to
an INTALIGN boundary, which it wouldn't necessarily be otherwise. But
why bother? That should have no effect on the behavior of bit_cmp().
So I'm speculating that the reason nobody has noticed a problem is that
there is no problem because this code is useless and could be ripped out.
It would be easier to figure this out if the btree_gist code weren't
so desperately undocumented. Teodor, do you remember why it's like
this?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-11 17:33:37 | Re: no partition pruning when partitioning using array type |
Previous Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2018-07-11 17:13:15 | Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types |