| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17969: Assert failed in bloom_init() when false_positive_rate = 0.25 |
| Date: | 2023-10-24 13:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | e28ce947-4755-41cf-1460-4b92f4fbdc3a@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi Shihao,
23.10.2023 23:58, shihao zhong wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> This change makes sense to me. But I have a question here, because we already have a limitation in rel option level
> and that will make sure the parameter is in 0.0001 - 0.25 range, this CHECK seems like a little redundant for me
> especially it does not match the constraint in rel option. Maybe I missed some context here, but could we just remove
> this CHECK?
I had started this discussion with the same question, but Tom Lane proposed
to reformulate the Assert [1] and I agree that it's for good.
Index attribute options are checked when an index created, but then
attoptions can be changed in pg_attribute, for example. I mean that such
a check makes sense because there is an intermediate level between setting
the option and using it.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/836412.1686502986%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-24 14:48:52 | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2023-10-24 09:48:06 | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |