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