From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Subject: | GiST subsplit question |
Date: | 2012-05-30 19:21:14 |
Message-ID: | 1338405674.18825.17.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I was trying to answer that question on -general, and I found it a
little more challenging than I expected.
There was a previous discussion here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-08/msg01816.php
And it seems to trace back to these commits:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=783a73168b972488f85e48381546db047cb8f982
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=1f7ef548ec2e594fa8766781c490fb5b998ea46b
I looked for the follow-up commit to support subsplit in the contrib
modules, figuring that would answer some questions, but I couldn't find
it.
The part that's confusing me is that the commit message says: "pickSplit
should set spl_(l|r)datum_exists to 'false'", but I don't see any
picksplit method that actually does that in contrib, nor in the sample
in the docs.
The code in that area is a bit difficult to follow, so it's not obvious
to me exactly what is supposed to happen.
So, do we demote that message to a DEBUG1? Or do we make it more clear
what the authors of a specific picksplit are supposed to do to avoid
that problem? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-05-30 19:26:23 | Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-05-30 18:55:12 | pg_restore logging inconsistency |