Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays

From: "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: "Mark Rofail" <markm(dot)rofail(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays
Date: 2021-02-15 15:34:43
Message-ID: 900d3c5b-b1f7-429e-827c-6bc6050ee830@www.fastmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi all,

I've reviewed Mark's anyarray_anyelement_operators-v2.patch
and the only remaining issue I've identified is the opr_sanity problem.

Mark seems to be in need of some input here from more experienced hackers, see below.

Hopefully someone can guide him in the right direction.

/Joel

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 11:49, Mark Rofail wrote:
>Hey Joel,
>
>test opr_sanity ... FAILED
>
> AND binary_coercible(p2.opcintype, p1.amoplefttype));
> amopfamily | amopstrategy | amopopr
>------------+--------------+---------
>-(0 rows)
>+ 2745 | 5 | 6105
>+(1 row)
>-- Operators that are primary members of opclasses must be immutable (else
>-- it suggests that the index ordering isn't fixed). Operators that are
>This is due using anycompatiblearray for the left operand in @>>.
>To solve this problem we need to use @>>(anyarray,anyelement) or introduce a new opclass for gin indices.
>These are the two approaches that come to mind to solve this. Which one is the right way or is there another solution I am not aware of?
>That’s why I’m asking this on the mailing list, to get the community’s input.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Seamus Abshere 2021-02-15 15:42:14 Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2021-02-15 14:37:01 Re: WIP: BRIN multi-range indexes