From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Crash in gist insertion on pathological box data |
Date: | 2009-04-06 01:29:02 |
Message-ID: | 7290.1238981342@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:
>> I don't like throwing an error there; I wish there were a way for the
>> generic code to apply the fallbackSplit code instead. I see that
>> in this particular formulation it's dependent on the datatype ---
>> can we get around that, by having it invoke the union method?
> Done. rtree.patch.gz contains patch for gistproc.c, genericsplit.patch.gz adds
> simple genericPickSplit to gistsplit.c to workaround bug of user-defined picksplit.
This looks good to me. I tested it to the extent of verifying that
either patch individually would prevent the originally-reported failure.
The only question I have is whether we want this nag message or not:
! ereport(LOG,
! (errcode(ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR),
! errmsg("Picksplit method for %d column of index \"%s\" failed",
! attno+1, RelationGetRelationName(r)),
! errhint("Index is not optimal, to optimize it contact developer or try to use the column as a second one in create index command")));
I'd be inclined to keep it but reduce it to level DEBUG1 or so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2009-04-06 01:49:28 | Re: EXPLAIN WITH |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-04-06 00:57:46 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |