Re: Surely this code in setrefs.c is wrong?

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Surely this code in setrefs.c is wrong?
Date: 2023-09-13 23:57:11
Message-ID: CAApHDvruz2irxACqN57MJw3Vd0jOqa+8xFuG5Mz0q_XPpOir2A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 21:07, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 11:22, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > if (!OidIsValid(saop->hashfuncid))
> > record_plan_function_dependency(root, saop->hashfuncid);
> >
> > if (!OidIsValid(saop->negfuncid))
> > record_plan_function_dependency(root, saop->negfuncid);
> >
> > Surely those if-conditions are exactly backward, and we should be
> > recording nonzero hashfuncid and negfuncid entries, not zero ones.
>

> I'll push fixes once the 16.0 release is out of the way.

Fixed in ee3a551e9.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-09-14 00:01:39 Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-09-13 23:39:05 Re: Redundant Unique plan node for table with a unique index