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

Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h

From: dg(at)informix(dot)com (David Gould)
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h
Date: 1998-10-29 03:05:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > This was, um, fruitful.
> My *goodness*, that was a good idea.
> I have now located and repaired ninety-three distinct bugs in
> pg_operator.h, all of the form "operator A has an incorrect com, negate,
> or sort link to operator B".  Almost none of them required any semantic
> analysis to spot --- I found them by looking for conditions like A links
> to B but B doesn't link to A, or A claims B is its commutation but B
> doesn't have the right input data types to be that, etc.

Bravo! I did this for Illustra a couple years ago. What a pain. But it is
nice to get right answers. Also, it lets the planner generate better plans.
If there is a negator or commutator it can use it instead of generating extra


David Gould            dg(at)informix(dot)com           510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 
Informix Software  (No, really)         300 Lakeside Drive  Oakland, CA 94612
 - If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-29 03:36:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-10-29 02:53:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another bug in pg_operator.h

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