| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
| Date: | 2015-01-21 01:55:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZT5GFMt2mC58uV+1xmuZTv+GgvGEg4RL-zNHnKBuDweww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Would you prefer it if the spill-to-disk case
> aborted in the style of low entropy keys? That doesn't seem
> significantly safer than this, and it certainly not acceptable from a
> performance perspective.
BTW, I can write that patch if that's your preference. Should I?
I just don't favor that even as a short term correctness fix, because
it seems unacceptable to throw away all the strxfrm() work where
that's a very predictable and even likely outcome. I suggest reviewing
and committing my fix as a short term fix, that may well turn out to
be generally acceptable upon further consideration. Yes, we'll need to
make a point of reviewing an already committed patch, but there is a
precedent for that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-21 02:30:01 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-01-21 01:46:37 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |