On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Uh. They're different:
>> >
>> > Datum
>> > timestamp_hash(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
>> > {
>> > /* We can use either hashint8 or hashfloat8 directly */
>> > #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
>> > return hashint8(fcinfo);
>> > #else
>> > return hashfloat8(fcinfo);
>> > #endif
>> > }
>> > note it's passing fcinfo, not the datum as you do. Same with
>> > time_hash.. In fact your version crashes when used because it's
>> > dereferencing a int8 as a pointer inside hashfloat8.
>> Thanks, didn't notice that fcinfo was used.
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> If helps, I added some regression tests to the lastest patch.
+DATA(insert OID = 3260 ( 403 pglsn_ops PGNSP PGUID ));
+DATA(insert OID = 3261 ( 405 pglsn_ops PGNSP PGUID ));
The patch looks good to me except the name of index operator class.
I think that "pg_lsn_ops" is better than "pglsn_ops" because it's for "pg_lsn"
data type.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
