| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
| Date: | 2015-04-04 03:24:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYo1KPDAkK87yOrz226Vbd8QAzTY6kXWYUXmYkDgedzHQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Gierth
<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> (This does rather suggest to me that some better regression tests for
> sorting would be a good idea, possibly even including on-disk sorts.)
Yeah. I've been unpleasantly surprised by how easy it is to pass the
regression tests with sorting broken.
> >> If you're determined to go this route - over my protest - then you
> >> need to do something like define a NumericAbbrevGetDatum(x) macro
> >> and use it in place of the Int64GetDatum / Int32GetDatum ones for
> >> both NAN and the return from numeric_abbrev_convert_var.
>
> Robert> Patch for that attached.
>
> That looks reasonable, though I think it could do with a comment
> explaining _why_ it's defining its own macros rather than using
> Int32*/Int64*. (And I wrote that before seeing Tom's message, even.)
Agreed. I have added that and committed this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-04 03:29:11 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-04 03:20:17 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |