On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You're welcome. After some study and experimentation, I've committed >> the other part also. > > Fantastic. I guess the precedent of the 9.5 text equality fast path > made this discussion way smoother than last time, since essentially > the same principle applies.
I think that is true. I spent some time thinking about whether the way you used INT_MIN as a sentinel value should be changed around somehow, but ultimately I decided that it wasn't too bad and that suggesting something else would be pointless kibitzing. I also tried to think of scenarios in which this would lose, and I'm not totally convinced that there aren't any, but I'm convinced that, if they exist, I don't know what they are. Since the patch did deliver a small improvement on my test cases and on yours, I think we might as well have it in the tree. If some pathological scenario shows up where it turns out to hurt, we can always fix it then, or revert if it need be. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: 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
