From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code |
Date: | 2016-06-24 03:15:01 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSW+59SWCm7WTXFYc=O9yJdO3_sMJ9HqXVN2YiJK2h9-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think this may be premature in view of bug #14210. Even if we
> don't reinstate use of this function to fix that, I'm not really
> convinced we want to get rid of it; it seems likely to me that
> we might want it again.
Oh, yes; that involves the same commit I mentioned. I'll look into #14210.
FWIW, I think that that bug tells us a lot about hash index usage in
the field. It took many months for someone to complain about what
ought to have been a really obvious bug. Clearly, hardly anybody is
using hash indexes. I broke hash index tuplesort builds in a similar
way at one point, too. The slightest bit of regression test coverage
would have caught either bug, I believe. I think that some minimal
regression tests should be added, because evidently they are needed.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-24 03:35:22 | Re: tuplesort.c's copytup_index() is dead code |
Previous Message | Justin Dearing | 2016-06-24 03:09:48 | Re: Odd behavior with domains |