Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code
Date: 2016-06-24 03:35:22
Message-ID: 7450.1466739322@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW, I think that that bug tells us a lot about hash index usage in
> the field. It took many months for someone to complain about what
> ought to have been a really obvious bug. Clearly, hardly anybody is
> using hash indexes. I broke hash index tuplesort builds in a similar
> way at one point, too. The slightest bit of regression test coverage
> would have caught either bug, I believe.

We *do* have regression test coverage, but that code is set up to not
kick in at any index scale that would be sane to test in the regression
tests. See
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12194.1466724741@sss.pgh.pa.us

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-06-24 04:10:29 Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-06-24 03:15:01 Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code