From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert failure in _bt_preprocess_array_keys |
Date: | 2024-04-22 06:22:25 |
Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_9c++hqJYd42X8tpWeOeUrZmWPc6O5E_AJhdHLf8UyoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:52 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:36 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I didn't spend much time digging into it, but I wonder if this Assert is
> > sensible. I noticed that before commit 5bf748b86b, the two datatypes
> > were not equal to each other either (anyrange vs. int4range).
>
> The assertion is wrong. It is testing behavior that's much older than
> commit 5bf748b86b, though. We can just get rid of it, since all of the
> information that we'll actually apply when preprocessing scan keys
> comes from the operator class.
>
> Pushed a fix removing the assertion just now. Thanks for the report.
That's so quick. Thank you for the prompt fix.
Thanks
Richard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-22 06:36:28 | Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-22 06:20:44 | Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables |