| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST multirange index scans can fail to return rows |
| Date: | 2026-08-02 07:03:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznAGx7ybvR7RXPEkMCBM38epm+snAVHLNTgDp-UuVRoEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andrey,
I think that you forgot to attach the patch with the actual fix?
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 2:12 AM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Aug 2026, at 20:01, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> >
> > <0001-Add-regression-test-for-multirange-GiST-containment-.patch>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I agree with the test and also think this is a bug. The check in
> multirange_gist_consistent() is too strict and rejects tuples that
> should reach the recheck. I think we should use
> range_gist_consistent_int_multirange() for this case. Using the
> internal predicate for every strategy would also be correct, but would
> weaken filtering and, IMO, cause unnecessary heap rechecks.
>
> PFA v2 patch set. The first patch is your test, and the second is the
> fix as I see it.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-08-02 07:08:17 | Re: Bug: XLogReader mishandles oversized multi-page xl_tot_len (potential memory corruption) |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2026-08-02 06:12:34 | Re: GiST multirange index scans can fail to return rows |