Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: GiST support for UUIDs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Bandy <bandy(dot)chris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GiST support for UUIDs
Date: 2016-11-29 19:13:57
Message-ID: 7076.1480446837@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> I'm kind of inclined to change uuid_parts_distance to just convert
> a given pg_uuid_t to "double" and then apply penalty_num(), as is
> done in gbt_macad_penalty.

Pushed with that change and some other mostly-cosmetic tweaking.

One not too cosmetic fix was that gbt_uuid_union was declared with the
wrong return type.  That's probably mostly harmless given that core GiST
pays little attention to the declared signatures of the support functions,
but it's not a good thing.  This would've been caught if anyone had
thought to run the amvalidate functions on the updated extension.
I think I will go and put a call to that into the regression tests of
all the contrib modules that define new opclasses.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kuntal GhoshDate: 2016-11-29 19:19:13
Subject: Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2016-11-29 19:04:40
Subject: Re: XactLockTableWait doesn't set wait_event correctly

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group