Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-09-16 16:58:21 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >> memcmp() has served well for HOT and for _equalConst(); why >> would it suddenly fall short for MV maintenance? > > I don't have a problem using it internally, I have a problem > exposing the capability to sql.
... like we do in *pattern ops and the suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() function? > Don't tell me that's the same. No, this gives users a way to make the same test that HOT uses for whether values match, albeit undocumented. Well, not exactly the same test, because this patch detoasts before comparing -- but pretty close. The question is, if it's unsafe for a user to make this test, why would it be safe for HOT to use it? I'm really having trouble understanding what problem you have with this. Can you describe a scenario where someone shoots themselves in the foot with it, because I'm not seeing any? -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
