On 2014-05-09 22:01:07 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > 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.
FWIW, I've tested and looked through the patch as well. > I think that "pg_lsn_ops" is better than "pglsn_ops" because it's for "pg_lsn" > data type. You're right, that's marginally prettier. You plan to commit it? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers