| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, benoit <benoit(at)hopsandfork(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan |
| Date: | 2024-04-22 17:59:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=78SnWZg+tbMhjGWqfRxYySk1uNYpGxfnL9vcQPWS8XQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:13 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that I could fix this by simply removing the
> assertion. But I need to think about it a bit more before I push a
> fix.
>
> The test case you've provided proves that _bt_preprocess_keys's
> new no-op path isn't just used during scans that have array keys (your
> test case doesn't have a SAOP at all). This was never intended. On the
> other hand, I think that it's still correct (or will be once the assertion is
> gone), and it seems like it would be simpler to allow this case (and
> document it) than to not allow it at all.
Pushed a fix like that just now.
Thanks for the report, Alexander.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-22 18:52:58 | Re: Add notes to pg_combinebackup docs |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-04-22 17:56:54 | Re: Statistics Import and Export |