From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Get more from indices. |
Date: | 2014-04-10 09:41:03 |
Message-ID: | 5346672F.1060202@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/04/10 0:08), Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Oops! I found a bug in this patch. The previous v8 patch missed
>> the case that build_index_pathkeys() could build a partial
>> pathkeys from the index tlist.
>
> TBH I think that's barely the tip of the iceberg of cases where this
> patch will get the wrong answer.
> Also, I don't see it doing anything to check the ordering
> of multiple index columns
I think that the following code in index_pathkeys_are_extensible() would
check the ordering:
+ if (!pathkeys_contained_in(pathkeys, root->query_pathkeys))
+ return false;
> Also, what's with the success return
> before the loop:
>
> + if (list_length(pathkeys) == list_length(root->query_pathkeys))
> + return true;
>
> At this point you haven't proven *anything at all* about whether the
> index columns have something to do with the query_pathkeys.
I think that the two pathkeys would be proved to be equal, if the both
conditions are satisfied.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajeev rastogi | 2014-04-10 09:45:53 | |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-04-10 09:21:16 | Re: WAL replay bugs |