On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 4:22 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached draft patch shows how this could work.
>
> _bt_restore_array_keys() has comments that seem to suppose that
> calling _bt_preprocess_keys is fairly expensive, and something that's
> well worth avoiding. But...is it, really? I wonder
On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 11:47 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The fix for this should be fairly straightforward. We must teach
> _bt_restore_array_keys() to distinguish "past the end of the array"
> from "after the start of the array", so that doesn't spuriously skip a
> required call to _bt_preproces
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 8:17 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> My suspicion is that bugfix commit 70bc5833 missed some subtlety
> around what we need to do to make sure that the array keys stay "in
> sync" with the scan. I'll have time to debug the problem some more
> tomorrow.
I've figured out what's
