From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Saner interval hash function |
Date: | 2009-04-04 15:42:59 |
Message-ID: | 4136ffa0904040842i680f337fnd31ee7b62987998d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Yeah. I did add a regression test for the specific case of '30 days'
> vs '1 month', which we know is a pain point for this particular data
> type. Generating values at random doesn't seem like it's really likely
> to teach us much though.
Yeah, I was going to suggest random values but came to the same conclusion.
I think each datatype would have to provide some list of "interesting"
values. But given that list it would be possible to do the same
regression tests for every data type.
I suppose it would require a plpgsql function using PERFORM to
implement though. ick.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 17:44:13 | Re: GetCurrentVirtualXIDs() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-04 15:16:24 | Re: Saner interval hash function |