| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
| Date: | 2018-04-18 22:04:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmZgrBWodwdd7V+ARP9LEv9=ndSjqhdm5cNmM6ppfG9Mg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I suggest committing this patch as-is.
Actually, I see one tiny issue with extra '*' characters here:
> + * The number of attributes won't be explicitly represented if the
> + * negative infinity tuple was generated during a page split that
> + * occurred with a version of Postgres before v11. There must be a
> + * problem when there is an explicit representation that is
> + * non-zero, * or when there is no explicit representation and the
> + * tuple is * evidently not a pre-pg_upgrade tuple.
I also suggest fixing this indentation before commit:
> + /*
> + *Cannot leak memory here, TupleDescCopy() doesn't allocate any
> + * inner structure, so, plain pfree() should clean all allocated memory
> + */
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-18 22:37:30 | Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-18 21:45:35 | Re: pruning disabled for array, enum, record, range type partition keys |