Re: Bug in nbtree optimization to skip > operator comparisons (or < comparisons in backwards scans)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Bug in nbtree optimization to skip > operator comparisons (or < comparisons in backwards scans)
Date: 2023-12-06 13:11:32
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob0XzOQJR4qky1Rm+OyL0G2O31CCMUzAahqBf=iydXadQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:15 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Just to be clear, you're raising a concern that seems to me to apply
> to "the other optimization" from the same commit, specifically -- the
> precheck optimization. Not the one I found a problem in. (They're
> closely related but distinct optimizations.)

It isn't very clear from the commit message that this commit is doing
two different things, and in fact I'm still unclear on what exactly
the other optimization is.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anthonin Bonnefoy 2023-12-06 13:20:37 Re: Possible segfault when sending notification within a ProcessUtility hook
Previous Message Andrey M. Borodin 2023-12-06 13:05:48 Re: Transaction timeout