Re: bt Scankey in another contradictory case

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: b ro <bigbro_wq(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bt Scankey in another contradictory case
Date: 2024-08-30 14:32:30
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkhDxA2dthK5sPiC1=QueCeTOSytfgBhmFYhkoYVOzcOg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 7:36 AM b ro <bigbro_wq(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>       this is the patch attachment.

We discussed this recently:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/80384.1715458896%40sss.pgh.pa.us

I think that we should do this.

It doesn't make a huge difference in practice, because we'll still end
the scan once the leaf level is reached. But it matters more when
array keys are involved, where there might be more than one descent to
the leaf level. Plus we might as well just be thorough about this
stuff.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anthonin Bonnefoy 2024-08-30 14:34:03 Re: Segfault in jit tuple deforming on arm64 due to LLVM issue
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2024-08-30 12:50:51 Re: JIT: Remove some unnecessary instructions.