Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > 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.
Added to TODO: Improve GIN's handling of NULL array values * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-12/msg00032.php -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs