| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table |
| Date: | 2016-05-25 14:02:13 |
| Message-ID: | 24270.1464184933@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Given what a Bloom filter is/does, I'm having a hard time seeing how it
> makes much sense to support the boolean type.
> My biggest gripe with it at the moment is that the signature size should be
> expressed in bits, and then internally rounded up to a multiple of 16,
> rather than having it be expressed in 'uint16'.
> If that were done it would be easier to fix the documentation to be more
> understandable.
+1 ... that sort of definition seems much more future-proof, too.
IMO it's not too late to change this. (We probably don't want to change
the on-disk representation of the reloptions, but we could convert from
bits to words in bloptions().)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-25 14:16:17 | Re: BUG #14158: PostgreSQL 9.6 bloom don't support unlogged table? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-05-25 13:51:09 | Re: BUG #14159: PostgreSQL 9.6 parallel scan consume very high mutex lock |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-25 14:11:28 | Re: Parallel pg_dump's error reporting doesn't work worth squat |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-05-25 14:01:34 | Re: pg_dump -j against standbys |