Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date: 2016-04-08 12:06:43
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Personally, I like documenting assertions, and will sometimes write
>> assertions that the compiler could easily optimize away. Maybe going
>> *that* far is more a matter of personal style, but I think an
>> assertion about the new index tuple size being <= the old one is just
>> a good idea. It's not about a problem in your code at all.
> You should make index_truncate_tuple()/index_reform_tuple() promise to
> always do this in its comments/contract with caller as part of this,
> IMV.
Some notices:
- index_truncate_tuple(Relation idxrel, IndexTuple olditup, int indnatts,
int indnkeyatts)
Why we need indnatts/indnkeyatts? They are presented in idxrel struct
- follow code where index_truncate_tuple() is called, it should never called in
case where indnatts == indnkeyatts. So, indnkeyatts should be strictly less
than indnatts, pls, change assertion. If they are equal the this function
becomes complicated variant of CopyIndexTuple()
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2016-04-08 12:25:38 Re: Lower msvc build verbosity level
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2016-04-08 11:38:42 Re: [HACKERS] BUG #13854: SSPI authentication failure: wrong realm name used