From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | sait(dot)nisanci(at)microsoft(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17158: Distinct ROW fails with Postgres 14 |
Date: | 2021-08-24 14:03:26 |
Message-ID: | 333555.1629813806@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It looks like 01e658fa74 is to blame for this.
> The test case can be simplified down to just:
> create table local (b bit);
> insert into local values('1'),('0');
> SELECT DISTINCT ROW(b) FROM local;
> Tom did have a look at this and raise the question about the
> possibility of not being able to hash in [1].
Huh. According to the thread, we discussed this exact possibility and
there's a test case verifying it ... so apparently something got
fat-fingered there.
> If it's going to be a problem detecting the lack of hashability during
> planning then maybe we can just add a hash opclass for BIT to fix this
> particular case.
Most certainly not. That would translate to a requirement that EVERY
data type have a hash function.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-08-24 14:11:41 | Re: Postgres 9.2.13 on AIX 7.1 |
Previous Message | Rainer Tammer | 2021-08-24 11:55:11 | Re: Postgres 9.2.13 on AIX 7.1 |