On 05.12.2010 18:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund<and...@anarazel.de> writes:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 17:42:59 Tom Lane wrote:
I think the reason the given example fails is just that it's all being
done in one transaction. If the null-containing row were known dead
it wouldn't get indexed. So: commit.
Um I doubt it.
[ gets out gdb... ] Oh: the reason GIN is complaining is that it's just
looking at ARR_HASNULL(), and the array's has-nulls flag is still set
because we don't bother to try to clear it after replacing one element
of the array. (Which in general would be an expensive thing to try to
do...)
If we were intending to leave GIN in its current nulls-hating state,
the thing to do would be to replace the stupid ARR_HASNULL check with
something more intelligent. But really it needs to be fixed to handle
nulls properly, so I'm thinking that might be a dead-end patch.
Sounds like we'd still want to just replace ARR_HASNULL() with something
more intelligent in back-branches though.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
