From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: B-Tree emulation for GIN |
Date: | 2009-04-04 22:25:10 |
Message-ID: | 24052.1238883910@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> [ fixes for the GIN stuff I complained about before ]
This all looks good to me, please apply. One little suggestion:
! /*
! * entryRes array is used for:
! * - as an argument for consistentFn
! * - entry->curItem with corresponding key->entryRes[i] == false are greater
! * than key->curItem, so next loop/call they should be renewed
! * by entryGetItem(). So, we need to set up an array before
! * checking of lossy page.
! */
pgindent will reflow this comment block, since it's not at the left
margin. To keep the formatting looking good you'll need to add /*--------
>> * I'd also like to come to some agreement about getting rid of the
>> fail-on-NULL-scankey problem in newScanKey(). As I noted in the
>> comment there, we could make that work cleanly if we are willing to
>> assume that all GIN-indexable operators are strict. We already assume
>> the same for hash and btree operators, so it doesn't seem like a big
>> problem to do this, but I wonder if there are any objections.
> Agree. I changed the GIN code, but don't know where is other places
> to change to fixate this agreement.
I don't think there is anything else that needs to be done for that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 22:58:04 | Re: Duplicate key value error |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 22:08:01 | Re: monitoring-stats.html documentation |