| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <akuzmenkov(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |
| Date: | 2025-04-02 18:17:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1101957.1743617821@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Does anybody have an opinion about how non-invasive to be in the
> back-branches? The minimal version is something like this diff:
Minimal is good -- less chance of breaking anything.
> - Should we commit the test showing that the naive implementation of
> index-only-bitmap-heapscan is broken, in case somebody wants to re-introduce
> it?
Seems like a good idea. Agreed on HEAD-only for that.
> - We have some superfluous includes in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c - but I think
> that's not actually the fault of this patch. Seems the read-stream patch
> should have removed the at least the includes of visibilitymap.h, bufmgr.h
> and spccache.h? And b09ff53667f math.h...
Meh, let's leave that for the next round of IWYU hacking.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-04-02 18:24:22 | Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-04-02 18:09:16 | Re: SQLFunctionCache and generic plans |