Re: SP-GiST confusion: indexed column's type vs. index column type

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: SP-GiST confusion: indexed column's type vs. index column type
Date: 2021-04-02 16:46:28
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkU7RX1Zb+bj1aH577bb20eGex2W9DmPzDBritxGqcUCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:37 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I propose changing things so that
>
> (A) attType really is the input (heap) data type.
>
> (B) We enforce that leafType agrees with the opclass opckeytype,
> ensuring the index tupdesc can be used for leaf tuples.
>
> (C) The tupdesc passed back for an index-only scan reports the
> input (heap) data type.
>
> This might be too much change for the back branches. Given the
> lack of complaints to date, I think we can just fix it in HEAD.

+1 to fixing it on HEAD only.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-04-02 17:02:47 Re: Process initialization labyrinth
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-04-02 16:37:51 SP-GiST confusion: indexed column's type vs. index column type