| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 19:36:24 |
| Message-ID: | 33lgqu6gliespblbvofmigtfrk5qghrzefzh64jcd5irxms6bx@zrmwgsf56lg5 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-04-02 14:17:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Pushed that way.
Thanks for the report and the fix!
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-04-02 19:41:48 | Re: [PATCH] Add sortsupport for range types and btree_gist |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-04-02 19:35:06 | Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan. |