| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SP-GiST confusion: indexed column's type vs. index column type |
| Date: | 2021-04-03 20:06:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4167018.1617480398@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Here's a patch that, in addition to what I mentioned upthread,
rescinds the limitation that user-defined SPGIST opclasses can't
set the STORAGE parameter, and cleans up some residual confusion
about whether values are of the indexed type (attType) or the
storage type (leafType). Once I'd wrapped my head around the idea
that indeed intermediate-level "reconstructed" values ought to be
of the leafType, there were fewer bugs of that sort than I thought
yesterday ... but still a nonzero number.
I've also attached a test module that exercises reconstruction
during index-only scan with leafType being meaningfully different
from attType. I'm not quite sure whether this is worth
committing, but I'm leaning towards doing so.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-fix-spgist-type-inconsistencies.patch | text/x-diff | 21.9 KB |
| 0002-add-spgist-name-test.patch | text/x-diff | 20.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2021-04-03 20:23:45 | Re: insensitive collations |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2021-04-03 19:57:23 | Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration |