Re: Saner interval hash function

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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