From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CUBE seems a bit confused about ORDER BY |
Date: | 2017-12-12 21:34:31 |
Message-ID: | bc4f6f55-1e63-945c-1291-91c4192f2482@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/2017 01:52 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
> <mailto:teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>> wrote:
>
> Yes, the thing is that we change behavior of existing ~>
> operator. In general, this is not good idea because it could
> affect existing users whose already use this operator.
> Typically in such situation, we could leave existing operator as
> is, and invent new operator with new behavior. However, in this
> particular case, I think there are reasons to make an exception
> to the rules. The reasons are following:
> 1) The ~> operator was designed especially for knn gist.
> 2) Knn gist support for current behavior is broken by design and
> can't be fixed. Most we can do to fix existing ~> operator
> behavior as is to drop knn gist support. But then ~> operator
> would be left useless.
> 3) It doesn't seems that ~> operator have many users yet,
> because an error wasn't reported during whole release cycle.
>
> I hope these reasons justify altering behavior of existing
> operator as an exception to the rules. Another question is
> whether we should backpatch it. But I think we could leave this
> decision to committer.
>
> I think that this patch is ready for committer.
>
> I'm agree with changing behavior of existing ~> operator, but is any
> objection here? Current implementation is not fixable and I hope
> that users which use this operator will understand why we change it.
> Fortunately, the fix doesn't require changes in system catalog.
>
> The single question here is about index over expression with this
> operator, they will need to reindex, which should be noted in
> release notes.
>
>
> Yes. I bet only few users have built indexes over ~> operator if any.
> Ask them to reindex in the release notes seems OK for me.
>
Is there a good way to detect such cases? Either in pg_upgrade, so that
we can print warnings, or at least manually (which would be suitable for
release notes).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-12 21:36:09 | Re: plpgsql test layout |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-12 21:33:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |